Time (in so many words) says PS3=bad

[ManuVlad3.0]

"Wii games got rated lower then PS3"?, What, every Wii game was rated lower then every PS3 game? But seriously if you mean that PS3's games were rated higher overall then I'd disagree and I think reviews would disagree as well.

PS3:
1. Resistance: Fall of Man 89.3%
2. Fight Night Round 3 85.8%
3. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 84.8%
4. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 82.2%
5. Call of Duty 3 81.8%
6. Need for Speed Carbon 80.1%
7. NHL 2K7 79.6%
8. NBA 2K7 79.5%
9. Ridge Racer 7 79.3%
10. Madden NFL 07 78.8%
11. Tony Hawk's Project 8 77.7%
12. Full Auto 2: Battlelines 70.8%
13. NBA 07 64.6%
14. Genji: Days of the Blade 60.1%
15. Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom 60.0%
16. Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire 35.7%

PS3 Avg: 74,38%

Wii:
1. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 95.4%
2. Madden NFL 07 83.7%
3. Trauma Center: Second Opinion 82.7%
4. Rayman Raving Rabbids 79.1%
5. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 79.0%
6. Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 78.5%
7. Elebits 78.0%
8. Wii Sports 76.7%
9. Excite Truck 74.8%
10. Super Swing Golf 74.7%
11. Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam 72.6%
12. Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz 72.2%
13. Call of Duty 3 70.8%
14. Need for Speed Carbon 66.7%
15. Red Steel 65.3%
16. Rampage: Total Destruction 59.2%
17. Wii Play 53.3%
18. Monster 4X4: World Circuit 52.6%
19. Happy Feet WII 47.6%
20. GT Pro Series 42.5%

Wii Avg: 70,27%

Source: http://www.gamerankings.com/

 

[Ben-Nice]

That little snippet is still better than this article


PlayStation 3 Losers Need to Get a Life

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2073727,00.asp

 

[dskneo]

they forgot to say how Playstation 2 started its magnificent reign....

 

[Teasy]

PS3 Avg: 74,38%
Wii Avg: 70,27%

Source: http://www.gamerankings.com/

Yeah that's the results with games with 5 reviews or more. If you do the same for 20 reviews or more (the standard for GR) it comes out 76.6/74.1 in Wii's favour. Or if you use Wii/PS3's top 10 games its 82.13/82.06 in favour of PS3. Its different depending how you set it up.. Which is why I say its a bit strange to state as fact that one list is better then another. They're both quite similar rating wise.

I only see two major differences between the game lists. First Wii has a truley outstanding game while PS3 doesn't. Second PS3's good games are almost purely multi platform while Wii's are almost purely exclusives.

 

[Sethamin]

Comparing review scores is just being obtuse. It's fairly obvious why the media would declare the Wii "better". It offers new games with an innovative play experience. Sure, sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, but there's no question it's different. In contrast, PS3 offers pretty much the same experience as is already out there with the 360, and it has no genuine hits except for Resistance. Everything else falls short or is multi-platform.

Also, if you took some casual gamers, gave them a Wii and a PS3, and then asked them which one was more fun, I bet than 90+% would say the Wii was way more fun. If you've ever had the experience to introduce some non-gamers to the system, you know it just has that appeal. So combine that with a price tag that's about half the PS3 and far more sales (so far), and there's no mystery here.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Comparing review scores is just being obtuse. It's fairly obvious why the media would declare the Wii "better"...

The review scores aren't cited here on gournds of which platform is 'better'. They're cited to question the articles assertion that PS3's launch games were lame. On the whole they've scored pretty well. If PS3's games are lame, then so to are Wii's, going by review scores. The only reasoning against that is the definition of lame. It could be the article writer didn't like them, at which point one wonders whether they like console gaming at all? Perhaps for them, Wii is fun and PS3 (and thus all other consoles) are lame. I don't read Time, but I thought it was reasonably high-brow and they wouldn't just through out personal subjective opinions like a tabloid newspaper. Objectively, by the only available metrics to determine a semi-objective rating of software, the comment that PS3's launch titles were lame doesn't seem to be valid.

 

[cthellis42]

How can you call launch titles lame for PS3 but can't call the launch titles lame for Wii? Wii games got rated lower than PS3 so uhm...biased much?

That Zelda buys much forgiveness.

...or perhaps it clouds your thoughts like a jedi mind trick.

Either way, it rocks. If the PS2 had launched with Okami and with all other titles having PS1 graphics, we'd still swear it was the best launch ever. Hehe...

 

[nintenho]

Hm ? The article doesn't say PS3 is bad. It just says Sony is bad at execution. You should change the title (More sensationalism by the usual few forum posters). :|

Well the title of the article was "5 Things That Went From Buzz to Bust" and then tells youin one stupid little paragraph why so I put a title that says Times is being stupid and biased. They HAVE always been biased against one of the consoles or one of the handhelds and it looks like they chose the one that's most expensive.

 

[patsu]

Well the title of the article was "5 Things That Went From Buzz to Bust" and then tells youin one stupid little paragraph why so I put a title that says Times is being stupid and biased. They HAVE always been biased against one of the consoles or one of the handhelds and it looks like they chose the one that's most expensive.

??? Read your line above and compare it to the current title. Is it the same thing ?

I don't know what you wanted to say per se... but I thought the title is inaccurate, and after your explanation... it's now both inaccurate and also doesn't convey what you wanted to say.

 

[nintenho]

??? Read your line above and compare it to the current title. Is it the same thing ?
I don't know what you wanted to say per se... but I thought the title is inaccurate, and after your explanation... it's now both inaccurate and also doesn't convey what you wanted to say.

I was trying to say that Times gives this extreme of an opinion on a videogame system that's been out for a month.

 

[Gubbi]

I was trying to say that Times gives this extreme of an opinion on a videogame system that's been out for a month.

The article points out that:
1. PS3 was hyped to hell and back
2. It was late.
3. In pathetic numbers
4. Expensive
5. Un-orthodox architecture, complicating development.
6. Weak game lineup.

All are in-disputable facts. One could argue that 6.) is redundant, since all launch lineups, ever, have been weak. But the fact of the matter is Sony fell short... By miles.

The executive shuffle at Sony indicates that share-holders, through the board of directors, think the same.

The article piece is worthless, not for being biased, but rather for stating the obvious.

Cheers

 

[Tap In]

it's written for people who don't follow video games to quickly digest if it's the next great product at the moment and worth buying at the moment compared to all the hype or not.

What he says in it is mostly true at the moment.

 

[patsu]

For those who sold the system successfully over eBay for thousands, the answer is perhaps yes.

For others, I have no idea. Each person will have their value judgement, but I don't think any game console is worth getting shot at.

For myself, the PS3 is a great system. It's definitely not "bad" as nintenho put it in the title. I find it rock solid (left it running in XMB or Linux for 3 weeks straight), fun and allows me to play with Cell. Was playing with Resistance, MotorStorm and Sudoku (My wife and I can't get enough of this). I will be renting some BR discs and also look at BlastFactor or GripShift (is it out yet ?) this weekend.

In fact, I have been staying overnight for the past few days to finish my work and spend as much time on the PS3 as possible I think I'm falling sick.

 

[Acert93]

That Zelda buys much forgiveness.

And the challenge will continue to be for Nintendo to get as many Zeldas to market as possible. Last gen they couldn't keep up

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What he says in it is mostly true at the moment.

Going by Gubbi's list, I'd say yes for 1, 2, and 3. For 4, it's not expensive at all if you want a BRD player as well as a console, plus the other niceties. As just a console, yes it's expensive. And as a CE product it's pricier than most will pay (but so is most launch tech). For what you get though, it's not bad value. For 5, what does that really matter? The rival XB360 isn't a casual stroll in the park to develop for either, and that unorthodox development comes with lots of potential. As the old Time article showed where they point out the same complaint with PS2, unorthodox architecture isn't a negative at all if devs still write the software. And for 6, as far as launch line-ups go, it wasn't that bad. There's certainly some high-calibre games worth playing even if nothing groundbreaking.

As a Reader's Digest type technological coverage, there's a slant towards the negative, rather than a proper +/- analysis. But isn't this just an article for dumping on some products simply for entertainment value? An end-of-year fluff article? From the title it's obvious they've set out to find 5 hyped products and point out how wrong they are, at which point you don't expect a balanced review, and instead expect the author to try and squeeze in as many witty insults as possible!