Cross platform game IGN scores PS3 vs 360

[hey69]

in that logic , the Wii version (wich is actaully 98% the same as the cube version) of ZELDA will get scored much lower then his GC part then?

 

[Powderkeg]

Higher overall score perhaps, or rather value for money score, but if the graphics are identical, shouldn't they score the same for graphics? And same for audio? I'd also say that just because PS3 costs more, you shouldn't necessarily be expecting games. That price includes non-gaming functionality. If you want to play COD3 and by a PS3 just to play it, and don't care for BRD playback or websurfing or whatnot, that's a bad choice by you. The games shouldn't be rated lower because the platform costs more.

Using that same logic Wii games shouldn't be scored higher just because Nintendo didn't put the most advanced hardware in the system either. They should all be recieving 6's and 7's in Graphics.

These are gaming consoles. If Sony's system costs $200 more and doesn't offer $200 worth of improvements over 360 games then that's Sony's bad decision, not the person who bought the system. Sony's been touting the "2X better than the 360" and "next generation doesn't start until we say it does" line of PR for over a year and a half now, and if they can't deliver on that then game reviews should show that lack of delivering.

If that means the same game scores lower on the PS3, so be it. It's no different from what happened with many Xbox games that were ported from the PS2.

 

[Powderkeg]

in that logic , the Wii version (wich is actaully 98% the same as the cube version) of ZELDA will get scored much lower then his GC part then?

It should be.

If you released a 360 game with Xbox level graphics certainly you would score the graphics lower because of it, wouldn't you? Even if the rest of the game was exactly the same on both systems the 360 version would recieve a lower score. (See Far Cry Predator compared to Instincts reviews. Same game with some minor graphics updates for the 360 version)

 

[expletive]

I hope these reviews dont start factoring in price to their rating system. Just review the games as you see them and let me decide on the relative value. I know what a PS3 costs, I know what a 360 costs, i dont need these reviewers telling me that there is more value due to the price of the system, i can figure that out on my own.

 

[Powderkeg]

I hope these reviews dont start factoring in price to their rating system. Just review the games as you see them and let me decide on the relative value. I know what a PS3 costs, I know what a 360 costs, i dont need these reviewers telling me that there is more value due to the price of the system, i can figure that out on my own.

It's not factoring price so much as percieved capabilities.

Like I said, it's no different from many PS2 ports scoring lower on the Xbox, and those systems were always priced the same.

 

[hey69]

most ps2 ports to xbox came many months later. In that logic i could imagine the reviewer not seeing anyting new or added .(just thinking here)

 

[Ben-Nice]

If that means the same game scores lower on the PS3, so be it. It's no different from what happened with many Xbox games that were ported from the PS2.

Then why weren't the X360 ports of Gun and Tony hawk getting a 3 or 4 for graphics. Cleary they weren't pushing the system . The bottom line is when it comes to launch titles alot of the X360 games got inflated scores because there was no other "next gen" console out. PS3 gets no such break whether it's right or wrong.

 

[flick556]

I think it is pretty obvious most of these games where made on 360 and then ported to ps3, because when they where originally developed 360 was the only thing available. When it comes to ports the original target platform always has a leg up. Even multi-platform engines will have to make decisions that may help one platform over another. After a year or two you will be able to look at several titles on both platforms and determine anecdotally if one is able to crank out better graphics than the other.

With the platforms being so divergent it's pretty much guaranteed that over time one will prove better than the other.

 

[Powderkeg]

Then why weren't the X360 ports of Gun and Tony hawk getting a 3 or 4 for graphics.

Because there weren't THAT bad.

But, if you want to compare...

Gun on Xbox = 8 for Graphics
Gun on 360 = 6 for Graphics

Tony Hawk AW for Xbox = 8 for Graphics
Tony Hawk AW for 360 = 6 for Graphics

The bottom line is when it comes to launch titles alot of the X360 games got inflated scores because there was no other "next gen" console out. PS3 gets no such break whether it's right or wrong.

Look at the above scores. How can you make that claim knowing that 360 scores were indeed lower than the same game on other systems?

 

[palamede]

1up does not have the same opinion on Madden : http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3155330
It doesn't convey the same natural warmth and dynamic range from shadow to sunlight. This is particularly noticeable while playing games in Texas Stadium. On the 360, when you move from the shaded part of the field into the midafternoon sun flooding through the famous hole in the roof you can almost feel your eyes trying to adjust to the exposure. On the PS3 it looks more like it did on last-gen consoles: There's a lit area and a darker area, but no sense of the intensity between the two.

Nor do the graphics themselves hold up to a side-by-side comparison. The fields don't just look flat, they appear muddy. And there is a blurry, soft-focus effect -- almost like you're looking at the screen while trying to cross your eyes. It leaves the players looking rough from the point of view you play in. The camera swooping in for dramatic close-ups also doesn't do them any favors. Many of their faces just don't seem to have the same degree of detail, and similarly, exposed arms look awkwardly plain
That's kinda weird cause I did expect PS3 games to be on par with their 360 counterparts.
Sony obviously hasn't said yet that next gen has begun, I guess.
I also found this hardware comparison, as I'm not good at that stuff, does it sound sound to you ?
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?cpage=1

 

[Titanio]

In some ways this may be legitimate. If you are paying a premium for a system, then logically you should expect a better experience.
If you can have the same experience on a cheaper system, then it's logical thet the version for the cheaper system should receive a higher recommendation, in this case in the form of a higher score.

I don't know if I agree, but if that is how they're marking them (or versus the system's potential), then all the more reason why simple score comparisons are futile. Asking which version is better, for example, versus which game is more worthy of its system are two different questions.

 

[Ben-Nice]

Look at the above scores. How can you make that claim knowing that 360 scores were indeed lower than the same game on other systems?

What were the overall scores of the games. If you look at reviews of crappy games such as Genji and Untold Legends. They always mention something like " we are expecting next gen gameplay and things that couldn't be done last gen" etc. I don't recall major deductions for that for the X360 Launch. Just for example not just launch titles. Go look at the overall score they gave Genji and look at the category scores. Then go look at the DOAX2 and Phantasy Star Universe X360 scores and explain how they scored higher overall and yes I know "not based on average" :smile:

 

[fbomber]

Uhm i think that the very simple fact that different people are reviewing the games on different systems might have a liiiiiiiiittle more influence on the scores than how long developers have had tools for, or how good these tools are, or how much electricity the consoles use up...
I know the tendency here is to go super-geek on every subject, but most times the simplest solution really is the most likely to be true...




Just my 2 pennies.

Frame rate drops perception is not that subjective.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I agree with this, I was focussing on the use of scores to compare games even within IGN's own family of websites. Historically it has appeared to be true that different sites within that family have held games to different standards..just even between reviewers you cannot expect a uniform standard.

But you're just cherry picking madden to make your case, in the case of madden they had an extra 3-4months of development time, so it makes perfect sense to be more critical, or expect a little more.

For the rest of games, like NFS, Tony Hawk, Marvel, they are compared directly and the PS3 version is obviously performing and/or looking worse, there's no point in dancing around the issue by sayiong different reviews can't be compared when the reviews themselves compare the games.

 

[scooby_dooby]

most ps2 ports to xbox came many months later. In that logic i could imagine the reviewer not seeing anyting new or added .(just thinking here)

You mean...like madden?

 

[Titanio]

in the case of madden they had an extra 3-4months of development time, so it makes perfect sense to be more critical, or expect a little more.

Perhaps, but as I said above that won't tell you which is the better version (whichever that might be).

As for the rest, whether there are issues or not between the versions, it's better to rely on the text than the scores, that's all I'm saying. Different IGN sites, even just different people, will behave differently when putting a number on the quality of game. And that's even more true if a reviewer is factoring things in like extra dev time or whatever, and muddies a comparison purely based on quality using scores alone.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Perhaps, but as I said above that won't tell you which is the better version (whichever that might be).

As for the rest, whether there are issues or not between the versions, it's better to rely on the text than the scores, that's all I'm saying. Different IGN sites, even just different people, will behave differently when putting a number on the quality of game. And that's even more true if a reviewer is factoring things in like extra dev time or whatever, and muddies a comparison purely based on quality using scores alone.

Sure, but Madden aside, its clear the majority of these games are in fact worse on the PS3, and it has nothing to do with them being scored harder.

And from heads up comparisons we've seen, Madden sounds better as well on the 360, but who knows...

 

[Titanio]

Sure, but Madden aside, its clear the majority of these games are in fact worse on the PS3, and it has nothing to do with them being scored harder.

That's fair enough.

Re. Madden, if IGN noted things "were the same" or better, then them scoring those aspects lower does suggest harder scoring, that's all. And that's fair enough if they're factoring in things like extra dev-time or quality versus system potential, but again I'm just pointing out that this would render direct score comparisons invalid if you are simply concerned about the game quality. Under that assumption a game on one system could score lower than a version on another and still be better pound-for-pound (just not relative to whatever the reviewer held the system to) - hence the text is your best guide. I am NOT suggesting anything about the specific games listed above when I make this argument (the scores may incidentally be indicative of relative quality in those cases, sure) - it is a general point on comparing numbers even from the same family of site versus comparing what is noted in the reviews themselves.

 

[Powderkeg]

What were the overall scores of the games.

Always lower on the 360.

Gun XB = 7.4
Gun 360 = 6.4

TH XB = 7.5
TH 360 = 6.6

If you look at reviews of crappy games such as Genji and Untold Legends. They always mention something like " we are expecting next gen gameplay and things that couldn't be done last gen" etc. I don't recall major deductions for that for the X360 Launch.

I take it you never read a Perfect Dark Zero review, have you?

It even made 1ups list of 10 worst launch titles in history, despite being the 3rd highest rated 360 launch game. Main reason = it wasn't "next-gen" enough.

Just for example not just launch titles. Go look at the overall score they gave Genji and look at the category scores. Then go look at the DOAX2 and Phantasy Star Universe X360 scores and explain how they scored higher overall and yes I know "not based on average" :smile:

This might come as a shock to you, but they are actually better games than Genji.

 

[palamede]

Well, have you read my 1up quotation on Madden ?
According to them, the game looks worse on the PS3 !
I'm quite surprised because I really expected PS3 games to be on par or look better than 360's.