Cross platform game IGN scores PS3 vs 360

[Nesh]

Rainbow six was delayed until the end of January for the ps3.I imagine that the devs are working very hard to prevent a disaster for this game.I'd expect it to look worse and run worse on the ps3 ,even woth the delay,based on what Epic has said about the UE3 and the ps3(that until Epic release UT2007 ,all other UE3 games won't run that well on the ps3,or something like that).

They said such a thing? When?

 

[22psi]

Exclusives like GoW,Alan wake,Mass effect,Halo 3 and more will also shine and be at equal looking(if not much better) than the ps3 exclusives.

We really don't know that now do we? I am just saying that exclusive games on both consoles will shine.

 

[PSman]

Exclusives like GoW,Alan wake,Mass effect,Halo 3 and more will also shine and be at equal looking(if not much better) than the ps3 exclusives.

We'll see about that ...


What I really meant in my last post was that, PS3 hardware is more complicated, and will required special coding. This is where I feel that exlcusive will really shine. I'm not saying that the 360 won't have great looking exclusive of it own.


Please don't turn this into another Console A vs Console B thread

 

[scooby_dooby]

They said such a thing? When?

No they just said that they were getting some complaints from people that UE3 wasn't running as well on PS3 as 360, but that was mainly because they were doing so much work on GOW at the time, and that was being passed onto the engine development team and going out to the UE3 360 developers.

Now they are focused on UT2007, we'll probably see big improvements in PS3 UE3 performance.

 

[aselto]

Powderkeg - I understand you very well. However, I have to say I agree with Shifty Geezer. Your example with the PS2 and the first Xbox is perfect.Xbox wasn't more expensive than PS2 for most of its life. However, because an average looking game on Xbox looked better than an average looging PS2 game (and the best looking Xbox games were looking better than the best looking PS2 games), reviewers were forced to note that a game looks basically the same on both machines and compare it to average on each machine, so the Xbox version was obviously rated harsher. But as of now we don't know what is average on PS3, because it's too early to determine it. Thus we can compare it to an average Xbox 360 game, because the machine is also a high-end console and has comparable system specs.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Powderkeg - I understand you very well. However, I have to say I agree with Shifty Geezer. Your example with the PS2 and the first Xbox is perfect.Xbox wasn't more expensive than PS2 for most of its life. However, because an average looking game on Xbox looked better than an average looging PS2 game (and the best looking Xbox games were looking better than the best looking PS2 games), reviewers were forced to note that a game looks basically the same on both machines and compare it to average on each machine, so the Xbox version was obviously rated harsher. But as of now we don't know what is average on PS3, because it's too early to determine it. Thus we can compare it to an average Xbox 360 game, because the machine is also a high-end console and has comparable system specs.

So Sony shouln't be held reponsible at all for their claims that the system was vastly superior?

I don't believe that reviewers are marking PS3 any harder in general, look at the graphical scores for resistance for example, if they were though, I would say Sony made their bed and now they can lay in it.

 

[Acert93]

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...

IGN routinely does "Versus" comparisons of ALL Major cross platform titles. Also, they do compare/contrast and account for that in their reviews. A number of reviews have flat out said the 360 version was better, which is reflected in the score. If they say it is better, and score it accordingly, I think in those cases it cannot be attributed to different reviewers. Based on the PS2/Xbox/GCN/PC reviews from last gen, they made a pretty strong effort in many ways to keep reviews very consistant.

In IGN's case I do believe the scores are relative to eachother to a large degree, as the text of the reviews would seem to indicate. I have not read them all but I do know the ones I have read have specifically drawn these comparisons (Tony Hawk comes to mind).

 

[aselto]

So Sony shouln't be held reponsible at all for their claims that the system was vastly superior?

Sony should be scolded, but not games and/or game developers, because you can't blame them for what Sony execs have stated. At the same time when Kutaragi stated "PS3 is easily 2x more powerful than Xbox 360" or "Xbox 360 is more like Xbox 1.5" (or sth like that), Allard claimed that both systems are basically a wash. IF Kutaragi was right and Gears of War paled in comparison to PS3 launch games, would you rate the game's graphics lower because Allard was lying?

I don't believe that reviewers are marking PS3 any harder in general

I don't either.

 

[heliosphere]

Only exclusive developers like Kojima & Co have had kits for long and actually used them.

These games are 360-ports made in the last 6 months. Some actually look and play better like Madden.

Not true, EA have had dev kits for a *long* time - remember the Fight Night demo from E3 2005?

 

[Powderkeg]

Powderkeg - I understand you very well. However, I have to say I agree with Shifty Geezer. Your example with the PS2 and the first Xbox is perfect.Xbox wasn't more expensive than PS2 for most of its life. However, because an average looking game on Xbox looked better than an average looging PS2 game (and the best looking Xbox games were looking better than the best looking PS2 games), reviewers were forced to note that a game looks basically the same on both machines and compare it to average on each machine, so the Xbox version was obviously rated harsher.

I disagree. The average Xbox game was a PS2 port with PS2 level graphics. Only a small percentage of the games (Mostly exclusives) went the extra step to realy utilize the Xbox hardware.

And again, this was not the standard set last gen with the PS2 and Xbox. Look at Madden 2002 which was an Xbox launch game. It was identical to the PS2 version, but scored lower in graphics. There was no average set, just like the PS3 now, but the Xbox version scored lower due to the expectations of what the hardware could or should do, just like the PS3 now.

But as of now we don't know what is average on PS3, because it's too early to determine it. Thus we can compare it to an average Xbox 360 game, because the machine is also a high-end console and has comparable system specs.

The expectations of the PS3 are that it costs $200 more, released a year later, and has been promoted as being significantly more powerful then the 360, so the games should reflect that. They don't, so they are scored lower.

If those expectations are not true then Sony is the one to blame for setting those expectations, and lower game review scores are the price they are going to pay for doing it, because fact is that is what most people believe, including most game reviewers.

 

[bRoNx]

So Sony shouln't be held reponsible at all for their claims that the system was vastly superior?

I don't believe that reviewers are marking PS3 any harder in general, look at the graphical scores for resistance for example, if they were though, I would say Sony made their bed and now they can lay in it.

What is this crap? So we hang SONY for EA's inability to polish an 360 port? Wow! That's seem fair!

Don't let your hatred for SONY cloud up the real issue! Look at what Insomniac did on the PS3. That is an exclusive launch title and by all (most?) accounts, it looks & plays great. And I'd go out on a limb and suggest that it's more demanding on the hardware than Tony Hawk, or NFS, and even Madden!

You've been around long enough to know that PR claims are worth as much as a used nappy, so there's no need to drag them in here. And value perception? How about having a standard HDD, BD-ROM, multi card reader etc...don't tell me that the $200 extra people pay for the PS3 would automatically mean better games. What a load of shit!

Personally, I think it's only fair to compare launch title to launch title. Plus, aren't they doing the lowest dinominator thingee again? Like last gen?

 

[RobertR1]

Personally, I think it's only fair to compare launch title to launch title. Plus, aren't they doing the lowest dinominator thingee again? Like last gen?

This is not how it works, plain and simple. No one asked Sony to launch a year after MS and vice versa when the Xbox was released after the PS2. You compare the latest with the latest.

 

[bRoNx]

The expectations of the PS3 are that it costs $200 more, released a year later, and has been promoted as being significantly more powerful then the 360, so the games should reflect that. They don't, so they are scored lower.

$200 more? Yeah, that pays for the HDD, the BD-ROM, the standard wireless controller, plus other features. It doesn't, and shouldn't, automatically mean better games.

If those expectations are not true then Sony is the one to blame for setting those expectations, and lower game review scores are the price they are going to pay for doing it, because fact is that is what most people believe, including most game reviewers.

If an experienced game reviewer buys into any PR, then I'm sorry, but he shouldn't be reviewing games, let alone allowed to waste our precious oxygen. He's clearly incapable of thinking for himself, and should be put out of him mysery!

This is not how it works, plain and simple. No one asked Sony to launch a year after MS and vice versa when the Xbox was released after the PS2. You compare the latest with the latest.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the "plain and simple" part. Seems rather silly, TBH!

 

[aselto]

I disagree. The average Xbox game was a PS2 port with PS2 level graphics. Only a small percentage of the games (Mostly exclusives) went the extra step to realy utilize the Xbox hardware.

And again, this was not the standard set last gen with the PS2 and Xbox. Look at Madden 2002 which was an Xbox launch game. It was identical to the PS2 version, but scored lower in graphics. There was no average set, just like the PS3 now, but the Xbox version scored lower due to the expectations of what the hardware could or should do, just like the PS3 now.

I wasn't a console gamer back then in 2001 but weren't Xbox launch exclusives already showing that the platform has the edge over PS2 games? I mean Halo or Project Gotham Racing were looking better than PS2 titles at the time, weren't they?
Right now I doubt you can say the same about PS3 exclusive titles.

The expectations of the PS3 are that it costs $200 more, released a year later, and has been promoted as being significantly more powerful then the 360, so the games should reflect that. They don't, so they are scored lower.

If those expectations are not true then Sony is the one to blame for setting those expectations, and lower game review scores are the price they are going to pay for doing it, because fact is that is what most people believe, including most game reviewers.

Are they really scored lower because expectations were higher or because they are slightly inferior (worse framerates in most multiplatform games, lack of HDR in Madden etc.)?* Though I guess Sony's hype was a little too much for what ps3 games can show right now.

*I'm not saying PS3 is inferior to Xbox 360

Don't let your hatred for SONY cloud up the real issue! Look at what Insomniac did on the PS3.

While Resistance is certainly an impressive game, it doesn't make X360 feel like Xbox 1,5 or anything like that. Sony did overhype the system's capabilities in comparison to X360.

Personally, I think it's only fair to compare launch title to launch title.

No, since developers had had ~4 months to play around with Xenon and Xenos before 360 launched.

Plus, aren't they doing the lowest dinominator thingee again? Like last gen?

And what exactly is this lowest denominator? Wii? 360? PS3? Low-end PC?

 

[bRoNx]

A Bit Of Common Sense, Please

For the record, and this isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but please refrain from claiming that SONY overhyped the PS3, or they lied about 2x performance or whatever -- especially from launch titles! This machine is expected to last for another 10yrs, so how about putting down the pitchforks and give the damn thing a chance!!! Jeez, it's only been out a few days!

Oh yeah. Since when did PR talk mean anything in this place? I'm surprised at the amount of people quoting SONY PR like it was gospel. Let's face it. PR is PR...even if it helps make your arguement stronger and more appealing, it's still PR, and worth as much as the gum under your shoe!

 

[RobertR1]

$200 more? Yeah, that pays for the HDD, the BD-ROM, the standard wireless controller, plus other features. It doesn't, and shouldn't, automatically mean better games.

If an experienced game reviewer buys into any PR, then I'm sorry, but he shouldn't be reviewing games, let alone allowed to waste our precious oxygen. He's clearly incapable of thinking for himself, and should be put out of him mysery!

I'm sorry, but I don't see the "plain and simple" part. Seems rather silly, TBH!

What's your point? that someone can sit around and wait and then we compare when they feel they're ready. Yet throw away the efforts and strides made by the competition during that time?

So should we always backdate comparisons by a year from now on? Oh, I Know! we should wait till we all feel that Sony has caught up and then go from there when comparing latest with latest. Great logic.......

I mean, how silly it was to compare the 7800 series to the x800 series, right? We should've waited till Ati could get their act together with the x1800 series and only do a comparison only then while compeletly discarding the 7800GTX 512, again, using your logic.

 

[heliosphere]

These comparative reviews are most useful for people who've been sitting on the fence regarding which next-gen console to pick up, waiting for all the systems to be available so they can see what the systems are actually capable of with real games rather than trying to judge which is better based on hardware specs and PR talk. For those people all that really matters is how current games compare - if you're wondering whether to buy a 360 or a PS3 this Christmas you want to know which of the cross platform titles that you're interested in are best on which platform and which platform has the better exclusives. How good the 360 launch titles were relative to the PS3 launch titles doesn't really matter except where there are 360 launch titles in a genre you're interested in that are still worth picking up today (PGR3 for example if driving games are your thing).

The other people these reviews are useful for are people who already have a 360 and want to know if it's worth them picking up a PS3 as well at this point. If the PS3 launch titles were leagues ahead of the 360 it might be, as it is they're probably better off spending the money on some 360 games and waiting for the PS3 to get cheaper and for some killer exclusives to appear, or for it's supposed hardware advantage to start showing up in cross platform titles.

Then you've got the people who've already made up their minds and are just reading the comparisons in order to justify the decision they've already made and make themselves feel better. For them it makes sense for the reviews to make whatever comparison shows their chosen system in its best light.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you don't agree then why weren't you complaining about how the reviews were so unfair to the Xbox last generation?

Because I wasn't following review scores on different platforms last gen. Neither am I following them this gen, other then people posting them!

They should be measured by their advertised capabilities, in which case the PS3 games should be above 360 games, not the same as. If theya ren't above the 360 then they aren't delivering the performance that was advertised, and they should be scored lower because of it.

Not sure about that. Graphics are subjective and rated by comparing them to other graphics, and not metrics. You can't really look at specs and use those to determine how much of a system's graphics potential a game is using. Some games can look great while not maxing the specs, for example, because the art direction is so good. At the beginning of a console's lifecycle, you don't have a standard capabilities to compare games to so they get compared with older systems, no? eg. Otherwise launch games ought to be scoring all of 6/10 for graphics compared to the total abilites of the system that take years to master. Madden 2001 scored 9/10 for graphics on IGN. Madden 2007 looks better, using more of the system's power, yet scores lower in the graphics, only 7.5. If the graphics is supossed to be based on system abilties as advertised, how come better graphics nearer those abilities are rated lower? It's because graphics are rated relative to other graphics. Madden 2001 looked fantastic relative to PS1 games everyone was used to. Madden 2007 looks mediocre relative to contemporary titles.

Less than 20% of the US, less than 15% of Japan, and less than 10% of Europe have HDTV's. To the rest the ability to play high definition movies makes no difference. And I rather suspect the percentage of people who have their game consoles linked to their PC's is far lower than that.

HDTV isn't the be-all-and-end-all of non-gaming features. Wii's photo-browser works on SDTVs, no?

To use the imfamous car analogy here, my car has a built in DVD player (With 2 seperate screens), 14 speaker surround sound system, and even has factory installed hookups for a game console. That doesn't mean it's a mobile entertainment center, it's still a car. Added features to a game console doesn't change the fact that it's still a game console. It's the primary function of the device that determines what it is.

Then is my computer a games console because I use it mostly for playing games? Or an internet browser if that's what I use it for? Almost always when I listen to music, it's on this PC. Does that make it a HiFi? It's a multifunction device, where some people will use it mostly for work, and other mostly for fun. In the case of PS3, it certainly wasn't designed primarily as a games console and with the other features bolted on. BRD wasn't included for the benefit of games, which I'm sure you agree with no matter what Harrison might say! Even if most people don't use BRD, the system was designed to offer BRD playback as part of it's primary duties. Reviews have said PS3's BRD playback is the best of any device yet, which goes to show care and attention have gone into making that a strong element of the system.
Whether you measure a system's purpose by its primary functions or how it's mostly used, PS3 doesn't count as just a games console. Neither does XB360, with people using it as a media extender. They are machines designed to perform more than one task, unlike games consoles that were designed to play games and nothing else.

 

[see colon]

So Sony shouln't be held reponsible at all for their claims that the system was vastly superior?

I don't believe that reviewers are marking PS3 any harder in general, look at the graphical scores for resistance for example, if they were though, I would say Sony made their bed and now they can lay in it.

this would be like holding a boxer responsible for what he says in the pre-fight interview. the boxer isn't going to say "i'm weaker than him, and i'm going to go out there and get my nose flattened". now that the fighters are in the ring we should be watching the action, not reading the pre-fight transcripts.

 

[bRoNx]

These comparative reviews are most useful for people who've been sitting on the fence regarding which next-gen console to pick up, waiting for all the systems to be available so they can see what the systems are actually capable of with real games rather than trying to judge which is better based on hardware specs and PR talk. For those people all that really matters is how current games compare - if you're wondering whether to buy a 360 or a PS3 this Christmas you want to know which of the cross platform titles that you're interested in are best on which platform and which platform has the better exclusives. How good the 360 launch titles were relative to the PS3 launch titles doesn't really matter except where there are 360 launch titles in a genre you're interested in that are still worth picking up today (PGR3 for example if driving games are your thing)

Very good point. But for these people, do you think they'll be buying purely from what's on the shelf today, or with the anticipation of what's to come in the future? Point being, if they're interested in racing games, for example, they could spend their hard earned $$$ on a 360 and get PGR3 NOW, or, they may decide to hold off and wait for GT or PS3? Just an alternative scenario, but point well made.

The other people these reviews are useful for are people who already have a 360 and want to know if it's worth them picking up a PS3 as well at this point. If the PS3 launch titles were leagues ahead of the 360 it might be, as it is they're probably better off spending the money on some 360 games and waiting for the PS3 to get cheaper and for some killer exclusives to appear, or for it's supposed hardware advantage to start showing up in cross platform titles

Good call. But I believe R:FOM & Motorstorm, and the upcoming launch window titles, are strong enough to warrant a purchase. Just as Kameo and PDZ were for the 360.

Then you've got the people who've already made up their minds and are just reading the comparisons in order to justify the decision they've already made and make themselves feel better. For them it makes sense for the reviews to make whatever comparison shows their chosen system in its best light.

Haha. Stop looking at me! I just want to make sure that these arguments are balanced, fair, and valid.

this would be like holding a boxer responsible for what he says in the pre-fight interview. the boxer isn't going to say "i'm weaker than him, and i'm going to go out there and get my nose flattened". now that the fighters are in the ring we should be watching the action, not reading the pre-fight transcripts.

How dare you break the car analysis tradition! lol! Yeah, that makes perfect sense! Imagine a Mike Tyson post-fight report: "That's right, ladies and gentlemen - Mike lied! This reporter can confirm that there were indeed no children eaten before, during, or after the fight! Mike lied!"