IGN is bias (proof inside)!!!!!

Reception

IGN gave the Xbox 360 version of skate. a 9.0,[13] and the PlayStation 3 iteration an 8.8.[14] Praise was given to the environments, control scheme, and soundtrack. Criticisms included latency issues with the online multiplayer, odd physics glitches, and the lack of free****tricks in both the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game (although it is possible to do lip tricks because of the unique grind engine built into the game). [15] However, IGN have since edited their review of skate., deleting the paragraph to do with complaints of the PS3 version being worse than the 360 version, after sources on the internet proved there is no difference between the two versions of the game. IGN have not changed the scoring for the PS3 version of skate. and it is still scored 0.2 lower than the 360 version.

SOURCE:WIKIPEDIA andsearch skate the video game.

...Interesting. Biased or not, they still write good reviews, though.microwavedapple

Well, except where they moan about the pacing of games involving a Sword that is HEavenly, when they were quite clearly lying, as it is paced beautifully and never gets boring, from start to end... And when they give said game a 7 when it's quite clearly an 8 at least...

So now there's proof of stuff like this?

This gen is getting embarrasing...isn't that right 1up?

[QUOTE="microwavedapple"]...Interesting. Biased or not, they still write good reviews, though.ShmenonPie

Well, except where they moan about the pacing of games involving a Sword that is HEavenly, when they were quite clearly lying, as it is paced beautifully and never gets boring, from start to end... And when they give said game a 7 when it's quite clearly an 8 at least...

Well, that's all opinionated. And I see I'm not the only one in this thread that got owned. Was it a certain 9.5 game that got ya?

There was a time (long ago) when you can trust reviewers to give an honest unbias review. darn it....

They did the same thing with the DirT review. It's better on PS3 but they gave both versions the same score. If that happens the other way they totally slam the PS3.EmperorSupreme

give me a break, DiRt was out on the 360 way before the ps3, thats why it was the same score, silly fanboys

ign is not bias, you people are overreacting

They explained very nicely why they gave lower score, only ignorant fanboys react like this and call them biased.

It is actually one of the most positive site towards PS3. They even have Playstation team of guys, that like Sony a lot. just check their podcast "Beyond". One of the best podcasts out there is you are playstation fan. I highly recommend it.

by 0.2 = bias? come on!!rogerjak

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

Some of you are so ignorant. CAN MODERATORS CLOSE THIS IGNORANT TOPIC?!!!

How can IGN be biased when last year they gave award to OKAMI(PS2) as game of the year? Year before that it was Shadow of Colossus. And most likely before that it was some PS2 title.

1UP is most biased site, if there is such thing, than they are.

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Pariah_001

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

yeah but if it didnt have all those new features then the score would have been alot lower, didn't it take like a year for it to finaly get on the PS3...

god are people really this stupid??

Some of you are so ignorant. CAN MODERATORS CLOSE THIS IGNORANT TOPIC?!!!

How can IGN be biased when last year they gave award to OKAMI(PS2) as game of the year? Year before that it was Shadow of Colossus. And most likely before that it was some PS2 title.

1UP is most biased site, if there is such thing, than they are.

Vojkan80001

I know, the first thing i thought after playing the PS3 version is "WTF were IGN talking about" their whole complaint about the load time when you got back to your checkpoint, well of course if you go all the way to other end of the map its gonna be longer, but i started at the beginning of the sewers and ended up at the other side of the PlanB factory and it only took 5 seconds to load me back at the sewers.

plus when i was over at my friends house we compared the 2 version side by side and there was no difference, except that on the 360 there were a few camera glitches (barely though) and on the PS3 there were a couple editor glitches, but neither enough to make either score lower. i only trust word of mouth from the players now.

Fangirls are so fickle.

When IGN give RFOM a good review in the 9's i think (and gamespot give it a "poor review" 8.8(or 8.6 i forget) anything over an 8.0 means very good even a 7.5 means it's good to ok, 4.0 means poor) fangirls were claiming IGN was the only "unbiased" "not bribed by MS" site going.

Now a couple of lower reviews later and a wikipedia(a site that can be edited by anyone doe's not count as proof) IGN are now biased towards 360.

The funny thing is IGN have specific teams for certain platforms so the guy's that reviewed the ps3 version are dedicated to ps3 games they only cover ps3 games, and they have a 360 team so 2 different teams reviewed the games.

I personally think Gamespot/IGN and 1 up are the best gaming site's going all there reviews are well written and 90% of the time there review scores are very close to gamerankings average which IMO prove's there reviews are spot on mainly.

Now fangirl's claim reviews by teams such as play(play who scored plenty of crap games high sonic 360 anyone)are the place to go.

IMO/IMO most of IGN/GS and 1UP reviews are very accurate and have well written detailed reviews, for instance heavenly sword was a very good game but it certainly was not a 9.0+ it's not in the same league as GOW or ninja gaiden, HS has excellent combat amazing presentition(forgive my spelling) but it had terrible AI and got quite repetitive with its pacing no exploration or platforming really helps with the pacing of an action/adventure game, If hs had exploration and platforming and much better Ai it could have been one of the best games in the genre, i personally think its got the best combat system but gets repetitive since there's nothing to really break it up.

I have not played skate other than a demo so i cannot comment, and again i think GS review of warhawk is spot on.

Why do reviews mean so much to some ps3 user's, i assume all the fangirls want is a game rated 9.5 to go with the hype they build up for each release so they can head over to system wars and say " na na na na na".

I never even pay great attention to the score i read the text,read previews watch some gameplay vid's and play a demo if possible and make my decision from there.

There's plenty of games that GS/IGN have reviewed 6.0-7.5 that i have throughly enjoyed, i love motorstorm its great but GS review score was right IMO, its a great game with little depth, the bar has risen so much this gen that to get a 9.5 the game has to be something special, and thats the way it should be 9.0-10 should not be handed out like candy.

Reviews are only a gamers opinion, gaming sites reviews are only a profesional reviewers opinion, if you disagree thats your opinion but neither is right or wrong thats why they are opinions.

by 0.2 = bias? come on!!rogerjak

Well, come on. What real difference is there between both systems? Other than the loading times and the controls, there isn't much. Bias?I think not.

Fangirls are so fickle.

When IGN give RFOM a good review in the 9's i think (and gamespot give it a "poor review" 8.8(or 8.6 i forget) anything over an 8.0 means very good even a 7.5 means it's good to ok, 4.0 means poor) fangirls were claiming IGN was the only "unbiased" "not bribed by MS" site going.

Now a couple of lower reviews later and a wikipedia(a site that can be edited by anyone doe's not count as proof) IGN are now biased towards 360.

The funny thing is IGN have specific teams for certain platforms so the guy's that reviewed the ps3 version are dedicated to ps3 games they only cover ps3 games, and they have a 360 team so 2 different teams reviewed the games.

I personally think Gamespot/IGN and 1 up are the best gaming site's going all there reviews are well written and 90% of the time there review scores are very close to gamerankings average which IMO prove's there reviews are spot on mainly.

Now fangirl's claim reviews by teams such as play(play who scored plenty of crap games high sonic 360 anyone)are the place to go.

IMO/IMO most of IGN/GS and 1UP reviews are very accurate and have well written detailed reviews, for instance heavenly sword was a very good game but it certainly was not a 9.0+ it's not in the same league as GOW or ninja gaiden, HS has excellent combat amazing presentition(forgive my spelling) but it had terrible AI and got quite repetitive with its pacing no exploration or platforming really helps with the pacing of an action/adventure game, If hs had exploration and platforming and much better Ai it could have been one of the best games in the genre, i personally think its got the best combat system but gets repetitive since there's nothing to really break it up.

I have not played skate other than a demo so i cannot comment, and again i think GS review of warhawk is spot on.

Why do reviews mean so much to some ps3 user's, i assume all the fangirls want is a game rated 9.5 to go with the hype they build up for each release so they can head over to system wars and say " na na na na na".

I never even pay great attention to the score i read the text,read previews watch some gameplay vid's and play a demo if possible and make my decision from there.

There's plenty of games that GS/IGN have reviewed 6.0-7.5 that i have throughly enjoyed, i love motorstorm its great but GS review score was right IMO, its a great game with little depth, the bar has risen so much this gen that to get a 9.5 the game has to be something special, and thats the way it should be 9.0-10 should not be handed out like candy.

Reviews are only a gamers opinion, gaming sites reviews are only a profesional reviewers opinion, if you disagree thats your opinion but neither is right or wrong thats why they are opinions.

shadystxxx

ummmm ^^^^You have way too much time on your hands FOR REAL!! and to the TC why do u care as long as you are enjoying the game, not that big of a deal

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!andymon_27

Well, come on. What real difference is there between both systems? Other than the loading times and the controls, there isn't much. Bias?I think not.

.2 of a point

really?

you ask a random person on the street which they like better blue or red and they say red, do you go "why? did the red team pay you to say that?"

you people are just too much

.2 of a point

really?

you ask a random person on the street which they like better blue or red and they say red, do you go "why? did the red team pay you to say that?"

you people are just too much

Absynthetic

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Jamie_1987

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

yeah but if it didnt have all those new features then the score would have been alot lower, didn't it take like a year for it to finaly get on the PS3...

god are people really this stupid??

Wow, you totally missed the point.

The game turned out better on the PS3 than it did on the 360 and yet it still got a lower score on the PS3. That means that there's something wrong with GS.

[QUOTE="Jamie_1987"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Pariah_001

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

yeah but if it didnt have all those new features then the score would have been alot lower, didn't it take like a year for it to finaly get on the PS3...

god are people really this stupid??

Wow, you totally missed the point.

The game turned out better on the PS3 than it did on the 360 and yet it still got a lower score on the PS3. That means that there's something wrong with GS.

she or he definitely missed the point..... well they did the same with heavenly sword.... it got an average of like 8 on the big gaming sites while the minor sites gave it over 9 like everytime and never complained on the length... since when did length have such a big impact on a games score that it deserves a 8???? especially since just about every1 who has owned and played the game has called it a masterpiece and greatest game ever and epic.... this whole situation is like 2+2=5 it's just WRONG

[QUOTE="microwavedapple"]...Interesting. Biased or not, they still write good reviews, though.ShmenonPie

Well, except where they moan about the pacing of games involving a Sword that is HEavenly, when they were quite clearly lying, as it is paced beautifully and never gets boring, from start to end... And when they give said game a 7 when it's quite clearly an 8 at least...

Well yea, I have to agree with you on that one... that was a pretty bad review. That's really the first one that I've been disappointed with after playing the game though... usually there reviews are pretty good, for better or worse.

Either way, I don't think they're biased... they were reviewed by different ppl that had different opinions I guess. On the other hand... I do believe the site that we are currently on is VERY biased.

Fangirls are so fickle.

When IGN give RFOM a good review in the 9's i think (and gamespot give it a "poor review" 8.8(or 8.6 i forget) anything over an 8.0 means very good even a 7.5 means it's good to ok, 4.0 means poor) fangirls were claiming IGN was the only "unbiased" "not bribed by MS" site going.

Now a couple of lower reviews later and a wikipedia(a site that can be edited by anyone doe's not count as proof) IGN are now biased towards 360.

The funny thing is IGN have specific teams for certain platforms so the guy's that reviewed the ps3 version are dedicated to ps3 games they only cover ps3 games, and they have a 360 team so 2 different teams reviewed the games.

I personally think Gamespot/IGN and 1 up are the best gaming site's going all there reviews are well written and 90% of the time there review scores are very close to gamerankings average which IMO prove's there reviews are spot on mainly.

Now fangirl's claim reviews by teams such as play(play who scored plenty of crap games high sonic 360 anyone)are the place to go.

IMO/IMO most of IGN/GS and 1UP reviews are very accurate and have well written detailed reviews, for instance heavenly sword was a very good game but it certainly was not a 9.0+ it's not in the same league as GOW or ninja gaiden, HS has excellent combat amazing presentition(forgive my spelling) but it had terrible AI and got quite repetitive with its pacing no exploration or platforming really helps with the pacing of an action/adventure game, If hs had exploration and platforming and much better Ai it could have been one of the best games in the genre, i personally think its got the best combat system but gets repetitive since there's nothing to really break it up.

I have not played skate other than a demo so i cannot comment, and again i think GS review of warhawk is spot on.

Why do reviews mean so much to some ps3 user's, i assume all the fangirls want is a game rated 9.5 to go with the hype they build up for each release so they can head over to system wars and say " na na na na na".

I never even pay great attention to the score i read the text,read previews watch some gameplay vid's and play a demo if possible and make my decision from there.

There's plenty of games that GS/IGN have reviewed 6.0-7.5 that i have throughly enjoyed, i love motorstorm its great but GS review score was right IMO, its a great game with little depth, the bar has risen so much this gen that to get a 9.5 the game has to be something special, and thats the way it should be 9.0-10 should not be handed out like candy.

Reviews are only a gamers opinion, gaming sites reviews are only a profesional reviewers opinion, if you disagree thats your opinion but neither is right or wrong thats why they are opinions.

shadystxxx

No, that HHillary dude wrote both reviews, hes on the xbox team, and trust me, he`s a fanboy,

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"]

Fangirls are so fickle.

When IGN give RFOM a good review in the 9's i think (and gamespot give it a "poor review" 8.8(or 8.6 i forget) anything over an 8.0 means very good even a 7.5 means it's good to ok, 4.0 means poor) fangirls were claiming IGN was the only "unbiased" "not bribed by MS" site going.

Now a couple of lower reviews later and a wikipedia(a site that can be edited by anyone doe's not count as proof) IGN are now biased towards 360.

The funny thing is IGN have specific teams for certain platforms so the guy's that reviewed the ps3 version are dedicated to ps3 games they only cover ps3 games, and they have a 360 team so 2 different teams reviewed the games.

I personally think Gamespot/IGN and 1 up are the best gaming site's going all there reviews are well written and 90% of the time there review scores are very close to gamerankings average which IMO prove's there reviews are spot on mainly.

Now fangirl's claim reviews by teams such as play(play who scored plenty of crap games high sonic 360 anyone)are the place to go.

IMO/IMO most of IGN/GS and 1UP reviews are very accurate and have well written detailed reviews, for instance heavenly sword was a very good game but it certainly was not a 9.0+ it's not in the same league as GOW or ninja gaiden, HS has excellent combat amazing presentition(forgive my spelling) but it had terrible AI and got quite repetitive with its pacing no exploration or platforming really helps with the pacing of an action/adventure game, If hs had exploration and platforming and much better Ai it could have been one of the best games in the genre, i personally think its got the best combat system but gets repetitive since there's nothing to really break it up.

I have not played skate other than a demo so i cannot comment, and again i think GS review of warhawk is spot on.

Why do reviews mean so much to some ps3 user's, i assume all the fangirls want is a game rated 9.5 to go with the hype they build up for each release so they can head over to system wars and say " na na na na na".

I never even pay great attention to the score i read the text,read previews watch some gameplay vid's and play a demo if possible and make my decision from there.

There's plenty of games that GS/IGN have reviewed 6.0-7.5 that i have throughly enjoyed, i love motorstorm its great but GS review score was right IMO, its a great game with little depth, the bar has risen so much this gen that to get a 9.5 the game has to be something special, and thats the way it should be 9.0-10 should not be handed out like candy.

Reviews are only a gamers opinion, gaming sites reviews are only a profesional reviewers opinion, if you disagree thats your opinion but neither is right or wrong thats why they are opinions.

KurupSoldr

ummmm ^^^^You have way too much time on your hands FOR REAL!! and to the TC why do u care as long as you are enjoying the game, not that big of a deal

What the whole of 4 mins it took to type the post.

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"]

Fangirls are so fickle.

When IGN give RFOM a good review in the 9's i think (and gamespot give it a "poor review" 8.8(or 8.6 i forget) anything over an 8.0 means very good even a 7.5 means it's good to ok, 4.0 means poor) fangirls were claiming IGN was the only "unbiased" "not bribed by MS" site going.

Now a couple of lower reviews later and a wikipedia(a site that can be edited by anyone doe's not count as proof) IGN are now biased towards 360.

The funny thing is IGN have specific teams for certain platforms so the guy's that reviewed the ps3 version are dedicated to ps3 games they only cover ps3 games, and they have a 360 team so 2 different teams reviewed the games.

I personally think Gamespot/IGN and 1 up are the best gaming site's going all there reviews are well written and 90% of the time there review scores are very close to gamerankings average which IMO prove's there reviews are spot on mainly.

Now fangirl's claim reviews by teams such as play(play who scored plenty of crap games high sonic 360 anyone)are the place to go.

IMO/IMO most of IGN/GS and 1UP reviews are very accurate and have well written detailed reviews, for instance heavenly sword was a very good game but it certainly was not a 9.0+ it's not in the same league as GOW or ninja gaiden, HS has excellent combat amazing presentition(forgive my spelling) but it had terrible AI and got quite repetitive with its pacing no exploration or platforming really helps with the pacing of an action/adventure game, If hs had exploration and platforming and much better Ai it could have been one of the best games in the genre, i personally think its got the best combat system but gets repetitive since there's nothing to really break it up.

I have not played skate other than a demo so i cannot comment, and again i think GS review of warhawk is spot on.

Why do reviews mean so much to some ps3 user's, i assume all the fangirls want is a game rated 9.5 to go with the hype they build up for each release so they can head over to system wars and say " na na na na na".

I never even pay great attention to the score i read the text,read previews watch some gameplay vid's and play a demo if possible and make my decision from there.

There's plenty of games that GS/IGN have reviewed 6.0-7.5 that i have throughly enjoyed, i love motorstorm its great but GS review score was right IMO, its a great game with little depth, the bar has risen so much this gen that to get a 9.5 the game has to be something special, and thats the way it should be 9.0-10 should not be handed out like candy.

Reviews are only a gamers opinion, gaming sites reviews are only a profesional reviewers opinion, if you disagree thats your opinion but neither is right or wrong thats why they are opinions.

Tlahui

No, that HHillary dude wrote both reviews, hes on the xbox team, and trust me, he`s a fanboy,

Ok i didnt know that i apologise.

Usually IGN use seperate teams to review games, i assume the swamped fall period means they have to cross-over.

If the same guy reviewed both games and basicly says there identical then it does seem a bit fishy, i will have to read both reviews.

[QUOTE="Jamie_1987"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Pariah_001

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

yeah but if it didnt have all those new features then the score would have been alot lower, didn't it take like a year for it to finaly get on the PS3...

god are people really this stupid??

Wow, you totally missed the point.

The game turned out better on the PS3 than it did on the 360 and yet it still got a lower score on the PS3. That means that there's something wrong with GS.

In my opinion the reason GS gave oblivion a lower score was because it came out a year after the 360 version, and also in that year the bar would have raised for reviews with better games technicly(graphics,sound etc) as games always get better 80% of the times technicly over the life span of a console.

But i do think the enhancements should have balanced that time-span out and the game should have been given the same score as the 360.

But if another person reviewed the game than its unstanable, 2 different reviewer opinions but if it was the same guy then yeah he should have scored it the same.

But really what does it matter, it's just somebody's opinion, do reviewers opinions mean so much? and why do they mean so much? for bragging rights over a system wars.

These threads are constantly on this board(gamespot are biased,IGN are biased etc etc) personally i dont think any of them are biased as most of the reviewers are in there late 20's and i cannot fathom a grown man being a "fangirl" but i wouldnt be surprised if there were.

I don't know there is a noticable frame rate difference at points on the PS3. It isn't anything that is terrible and certainly not to the degree of Madden or NCAA but its still there. And for all you know I could have wrote that on Wikipedia.

They did the same thing with the DirT review. It's better on PS3 but they gave both versions the same score. If that happens the other way they totally slam the PS3.EmperorSupreme

haha damn ... [mad] GRRR @ ign

...thevinsky

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="Jamie_1987"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!shadystxxx

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

yeah but if it didnt have all those new features then the score would have been alot lower, didn't it take like a year for it to finaly get on the PS3...

god are people really this stupid??

Wow, you totally missed the point.

The game turned out better on the PS3 than it did on the 360 and yet it still got a lower score on the PS3. That means that there's something wrong with GS.

In my opinion the reason GS gave oblivion a lower score was because it came out a year after the 360 version, and also in that year the bar would have raised for reviews with better games technicly(graphics,sound etc) as games always get better 80% of the times technicly over the life span of a console.

But i do think the enhancements should have balanced that time-span out and the game should have been given the same score as the 360.

But if another person reviewed the game than its unstanable, 2 different reviewer opinions but if it was the same guy then yeah he should have scored it the same.

But really what does it matter, it's just somebody's opinion, do reviewers opinions mean so much? and why do they mean so much? for bragging rights over a system wars.

These threads are constantly on this board(gamespot are biased,IGN are biased etc etc) personally i dont think any of them are biased as most of the reviewers are in there late 20's and i cannot fathom a grown man being a "fangirl" but i wouldnt be surprised if there were.

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Pariah_001

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!Pariah_001

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

maybe because it came out a year later?... jeez.. If I released space invaders now as a full fledged game for 60 bucks it would get a lower score than it did when it first came out.. grow a brain.

And you guys should stop worrying about reviews so much especially a difference of .2 jeez .2!!!!

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]They did the same thing with the DirT review. It's better on PS3 but they gave both versions the same score. If that happens the other way they totally slam the PS3.Jamie_1987

give me a break, DiRt was out on the 360 way before the ps3, thats why it was the same score, silly fanboys

ign is not bias, you people are overreacting

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]by 0.2 = bias? come on!!The_Tombo

Every little bit counts. If they can't say that the PS3 version absolutely sucks, then they're going to say what they can get away with.

In the case of GS, take Oblivion for example. It's indisputable common knowledge that the gameon the PS3 had more features and better graphics. This was even admitted by the reviewer I believe. And yet, the game scored .2 points lower than the 360 version.

maybe because it came out a year later?... jeez.. If I released space invaders now as a full fledged game for 60 bucks it would get a lower score than it did when it first came out.. grow a brain.

And you guys should stop worrying about reviews so much especially a difference of .2 jeez .2!!!!