Can anyone explain to me why people never include MLB: The Show in AAAE lists?

[QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

MLB: The Show is considered not exclusive because the same game is available on the PS2. The PS3 version may have some extra features and better graphics, but the basic core gameplay is the same, as well as the presentation.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter IS considered exclusive to the Xbox 360, because the Xbox/PS2 versions are completely different and watered down (and suck), and the PC version is a completely different game with the same name (360 version is 3rd person, PC is first person, but that's only one of the many differences)

Odrec

different level design and different gameplay mechanics don't matter either?

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Fair enough, but you are in System Wars, where there is a strict definition that is adhered to. You saying it is exclusive in here, is not correct. So you are wrong, no ifs ands or buts about it.

If you wish to call it an exclusive outside of System Wars, that is your prerogative, and not for me to define.

CaseyWegner

Watch me continue to call it an exclusive in System Wars, regardeless. Are you a mod who can stop me from calling it exclusive? I didn't think so. Run along and play, then.

then by all means post in detail how they are different.

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Watch me continue to call it an exclusive in System Wars, regardeless. Are you a mod who can stop me from calling it exclusive? I didn't think so. Run along and play, then.

KristoffBrujah

then by all means post in detail how they are different.

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

The gameplay mechanics were not vastly different, and the graphics did not denote a big detriment in terms of gameplay quality. In essence, they were more similar, than they were different. Hence the whole "not exclusive" thing.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Watch me continue to call it an exclusive in System Wars, regardeless. Are you a mod who can stop me from calling it exclusive? I didn't think so. Run along and play, then.

KristoffBrujah

then by all means post in detail how they are different.

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

then it's multiplat. graphical differences don't make it exclusive.

simple it is not an exclusive to lemming for the same reason that Cows dont consider mass efffect 2 exclusive to the 360, because TECHNICALLY you dont NEED a PS3 to play it.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

then by all means post in detail how they are different.

CaseyWegner

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

then it's multiplat. graphical differences don't make it exclusive.

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

KristoffBrujah

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

KristoffBrujah

then it's multiplat. graphical differences don't make it exclusive.

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

it's logical because it's the same game. should a ps3/360 game be considered a ps3 exclusive just because the image quality is slightly better? of course not.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

HarlockJC

I don't know what you mean by "remakes." Do you mean remakes across systems?

My definition is this: if it looks approximately similar across consoles that you cannot mistake it for a different game, it is a multi-plat. If a reasonable person would mistake it for a completely different game, it is not. You are not having the full experience that the game (the full version) can provide.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

KristoffBrujah

I don't know what you mean by "remakes." Do you mean remakes across systems?

My definition is this: if it looks approximately similar across consoles that you cannot mistake it for a different game, it is a multi-plat. If a reasonable person would mistake it for a completely different game, it is not. You are not having the full experience that the game (the full version) can provide.

but if they started playing both games they'd see they were playing the same one.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

KristoffBrujah

I don't know what you mean by "remakes." Do you mean remakes across systems?

My definition is this: if it looks approximately similar across consoles that you cannot mistake it for a different game, it is a multi-plat. If a reasonable person would mistake it for a completely different game, it is not. You are not having the full experience that the game (the full version) can provide.

So by your definition it is completely subjective, and can therefore not be held to a standard. Which is what is needed in a forum.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

then it's multiplat. graphical differences don't make it exclusive.

CaseyWegner

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

it's logical because it's the same game. should a ps3/360 game be considered a ps3 exclusive just because the image quality is slightly better? of course not.

Don't you think there is a fairly obvious line between slightly better framerates/textures (ps3/360) and two games that a reasonable person would commonly mistake as different games? What about the sound quality? You're talking about the PS2, which has a 10-year old sound processor; it sounds like trash compared to a current gen sound processor.

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a difference between those two variations. I'm a gameplay freak, don't get me wrong, but I pay full price for the whole package. Anything less can seriously impair the immersiveness of a sports-genre game.

[QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

MLB: The Show is considered not exclusive because the same game is available on the PS2. The PS3 version may have some extra features and better graphics, but the basic core gameplay is the same, as well as the presentation.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter IS considered exclusive to the Xbox 360, because the Xbox/PS2 versions are completely different and watered down (and suck), and the PC version is a completely different game with the same name (360 version is 3rd person, PC is first person, but that's only one of the many differences)

Odrec

And wouldn't you need the TPS option in the PC version to make it play like 360 GRAW?:lol:

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"] Should all remakes then be counted as exclusive just because they have better graphics? Where do we draw the line is all the Wiimakes like Metroid prime collection now exclusive because they use the Wiimote?

lundy86_4

I don't know what you mean by "remakes." Do you mean remakes across systems?

My definition is this: if it looks approximately similar across consoles that you cannot mistake it for a different game, it is a multi-plat. If a reasonable person would mistake it for a completely different game, it is not. You are not having the full experience that the game (the full version) can provide.

So by your definition it is completely subjective, and can therefore not be held to a standard. Which is what is needed in a forum.

Or you could just be reasonable and not apply a strict rule that, in some instances, are obviously absurd.

The actual US law, if you look at it, applies a "reasonability" test in many criminal cases. It's a far more serious court than System Wars, and yet even they recognize that a hard-line interpretation will result in absurdities.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

How is that logical at all? Slight technical differences, sure. But completely different resolutions, particle effects, textures, higher quality sound from a superior sound processor, etc. make it "multi-plat"? That completely bastardizes the concept of multi-plat.

KristoffBrujah

it's logical because it's the same game. should a ps3/360 game be considered a ps3 exclusive just because the image quality is slightly better? of course not.

Don't you think there is a fairly obvious line between slightly better framerates/textures (ps3/360) and two games that a reasonable person would commonly mistake as different games? What about the sound quality? You're talking about the PS2, which has a 10-year old sound processor; it sounds like trash compared to a current gen sound processor.

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a difference between those two variations. I'm a gameplay freak, don't get me wrong, but I pay full price for the whole package. Anything less can seriously impair the immersiveness of a sports-genre game.

don't you think it's a bad sign that you refer to it as a "mistake" when somebody thinks they're different games?

Wait, yes I can, people still argue GRAWs exclusivisty. beast667

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

it's logical because it's the same game. should a ps3/360 game be considered a ps3 exclusive just because the image quality is slightly better? of course not.

CaseyWegner

Don't you think there is a fairly obvious line between slightly better framerates/textures (ps3/360) and two games that a reasonable person would commonly mistake as different games? What about the sound quality? You're talking about the PS2, which has a 10-year old sound processor; it sounds like trash compared to a current gen sound processor.

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a difference between those two variations. I'm a gameplay freak, don't get me wrong, but I pay full price for the whole package. Anything less can seriously impair the immersiveness of a sports-genre game.

don't you think it's a bad sign that you refer to it as a "mistake" when somebody thinks they're different games?

Semantics, this is your new approach? I could obviously have used the word "think", or "rate", or "review", so your point is pretty meaningless. It's marketed as the same game, but people will not know it is. Why? Because their experience will be vastly different depending on which version they play. That's not a multi-plat. I know that I'm playing MW2 no matter which system it's on; that's a multi-plat.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

I don't know what you mean by "remakes." Do you mean remakes across systems?

My definition is this: if it looks approximately similar across consoles that you cannot mistake it for a different game, it is a multi-plat. If a reasonable person would mistake it for a completely different game, it is not. You are not having the full experience that the game (the full version) can provide.

KristoffBrujah

So by your definition it is completely subjective, and can therefore not be held to a standard. Which is what is needed in a forum.

Or you could just be reasonable and not apply a strict rule that, in some instances, are obviously absurd.

The actual US law, if you look at it, applies a "reasonability" test in many criminal cases. It's a far more serious court than System Wars, and yet even they recognize that a hard-line interpretation will result in absurdities.

We're not asking, nor giving a "hard-line interpretation", we are just saying that your points are not enough to validate the game as being significantly different, enough so to promote it being exclusive.

The fact still remains, they are more similar than they are different. You can still achieve a similar core experience from both games.

Like I said, it cannot be held to a standard by your definition and therefore would be different in each individual's opinion. That therefore, does not promote a single list of quantifiable data (ie, a list of exclusives).

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

then by all means post in detail how they are different.

lundy86_4

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

The gameplay mechanics were not vastly different, and the graphics did not denote a big detriment in terms of gameplay quality. In essence, they were more similar, than they were different. Hence the whole "not exclusive" thing.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

The difference between a handheld portable/PS2 and the PS3? Serious resolution and texture differences. The difference between 1280x1024 and 1080p? Uh... that seems pretty straightforward if you have a 42" LCD HDTV and Dolby Surround Sound.

Odrec

The gameplay mechanics were not vastly different, and the graphics did not denote a big detriment in terms of gameplay quality. In essence, they were more similar, than they were different. Hence the whole "not exclusive" thing.

Fair enough. What marks one review as more accurate than another? What makes the IGN review fact?

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

So by your definition it is completely subjective, and can therefore not be held to a standard. Which is what is needed in a forum.

lundy86_4

Or you could just be reasonable and not apply a strict rule that, in some instances, are obviously absurd.

The actual US law, if you look at it, applies a "reasonability" test in many criminal cases. It's a far more serious court than System Wars, and yet even they recognize that a hard-line interpretation will result in absurdities.

We're not asking, nor giving a "hard-line interpretation", we are just saying that your points are not enough to validate the game as being significantly different, enough so to promote it being exclusive.

The fact still remains, they are more similar than they are different. You can still achieve a similar core experience from both games.

Like I said, it cannot be held to a standard by your definition and therefore would be different in each individual's opinion. That therefore, does not promote a single list of quantifiable data (ie, a list of exclusives).

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter IS considered exclusive to the Xbox 360, because the Xbox/PS2 versions are completely different and watered down (and suck), and the PC version is a completely different game with the same name (360 version is 3rd person, PC is first person, but that's only one of the many differences)

hockeyruler12

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

MLB: The Show is considered not exclusive because the same game is available on the PS2. The PS3 version may have some extra features and better graphics, but the basic core gameplay is the same, as well as the presentation.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter IS considered exclusive to the Xbox 360, because the Xbox/PS2 versions are completely different and watered down (and suck), and the PC version is a completely different game with the same name (360 version is 3rd person, PC is first person, but that's only one of the many differences)

CaseyWegner

different level design and different gameplay mechanics don't matter either?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Don't you think there is a fairly obvious line between slightly better framerates/textures (ps3/360) and two games that a reasonable person would commonly mistake as different games? What about the sound quality? You're talking about the PS2, which has a 10-year old sound processor; it sounds like trash compared to a current gen sound processor.

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a difference between those two variations. I'm a gameplay freak, don't get me wrong, but I pay full price for the whole package. Anything less can seriously impair the immersiveness of a sports-genre game.

KristoffBrujah

don't you think it's a bad sign that you refer to it as a "mistake" when somebody thinks they're different games?

Semantics, this is your new approach? I could obviously have used the word "think", or "rate", or "review", so your point is pretty meaningless. It's marketed as the same game, but people will not know it is. Why? Because their experience will be vastly different depending on which version they play. That's not a multi-plat. I know that I'm playing MW2 no matter which system it's on; that's a multi-plat.

i don't know how to approach this. you keep telling me that the games are different just because one looks better than another. :?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Odrec"] That one version is worst than the other is not sufficient argument. The same can be said about MLB since the PS2 version is considerably inferior lacking significant stuff due to the PS2 engine as the IGN review pointed out. The FPS vs TPS argument shouldn't count since in the 360 version you can play as TPS or FPS like the PC version. Again if this game is counted MLB should count.Odrec

different level design and different gameplay mechanics don't matter either?

[QUOTE="beast667"] Wait, yes I can, people still argue GRAWs exclusivisty. mitu123

Fair enough. What marks one review as more accurate than another? What makes the IGN review fact?

lundy86_4

I don't know. What marks mitu's analysis of GRAW as fact? Is the same kind of analysis.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

don't you think it's a bad sign that you refer to it as a "mistake" when somebody thinks they're different games?

CaseyWegner

Semantics, this is your new approach? I could obviously have used the word "think", or "rate", or "review", so your point is pretty meaningless. It's marketed as the same game, but people will not know it is. Why? Because their experience will be vastly different depending on which version they play. That's not a multi-plat. I know that I'm playing MW2 no matter which system it's on; that's a multi-plat.

i don't know how to approach this. you keep telling me that the games are different just because one looks better than another. :?

Honestly, I think what I said stands on its own merit, and I cannot discern what point you are making with the above remark.

BTW, Odrec posted the IGN differences in depth. So it looks like not only signficant graphics and sound differences, but also different features.

I'm not saying that these are different games. I'm saying that to call a very lousy, stripped-down port a "multiplat" is totally deceiving, to the point of intentional deception.

Mah Saturday night entertainment....I founds it.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Or you could just be reasonable and not apply a strict rule that, in some instances, are obviously absurd.

The actual US law, if you look at it, applies a "reasonability" test in many criminal cases. It's a far more serious court than System Wars, and yet even they recognize that a hard-line interpretation will result in absurdities.

KristoffBrujah

We're not asking, nor giving a "hard-line interpretation", we are just saying that your points are not enough to validate the game as being significantly different, enough so to promote it being exclusive.

The fact still remains, they are more similar than they are different. You can still achieve a similar core experience from both games.

Like I said, it cannot be held to a standard by your definition and therefore would be different in each individual's opinion. That therefore, does not promote a single list of quantifiable data (ie, a list of exclusives).

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

Denoting the core gameplay mechanics to being extremely similar, rather than vastly different is so apparent that subjectivity does not really play a part.

Note these two gameplay videos:

PS3 Gameplay

PS2 Gameplay

As you'll note. The similarities between the two, far outweigh the differences.

Again, as I stated to Odrec, who decides whether IGN's review is law?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Semantics, this is your new approach? I could obviously have used the word "think", or "rate", or "review", so your point is pretty meaningless. It's marketed as the same game, but people will not know it is. Why? Because their experience will be vastly different depending on which version they play. That's not a multi-plat. I know that I'm playing MW2 no matter which system it's on; that's a multi-plat.

KristoffBrujah

i don't know how to approach this. you keep telling me that the games are different just because one looks better than another. :?

Honestly, I think what I said stands on its own merit, and I cannot discern what point you are making with the above remark.

BTW, Odrec posted the IGN differences in depth. So it looks like not only signficant graphics and sound differences, but also different features.

I'm not saying that these are different games. I'm saying that to call a very lousy, stripped-down port a "multiplat" is totally deceiving, to the point of intentional deception.

games with bonus features have never been considered exclusive.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Fair enough. What marks one review as more accurate than another? What makes the IGN review fact?

Odrec

I don't know. What marks mitu's analysis of GRAW as fact? Is the same kind of analysis.

I noted this in a later post. The fact that the differences are so apparent (one is FPS, one is TPS), therefore how can they, ever, be seen as the same game with the same core mechanics? Also, the missions are compoletely different, and hold NO similarity to each other whatsoever.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

We're not asking, nor giving a "hard-line interpretation", we are just saying that your points are not enough to validate the game as being significantly different, enough so to promote it being exclusive.

The fact still remains, they are more similar than they are different. You can still achieve a similar core experience from both games.

Like I said, it cannot be held to a standard by your definition and therefore would be different in each individual's opinion. That therefore, does not promote a single list of quantifiable data (ie, a list of exclusives).

lundy86_4

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

Denoting the core gameplay mechanics to being extremely similar, rather than vastly different is so apparent that subjectivity does not really play a part.

Note these two gameplay videos:

PS3 Gameplay

PS2 Gameplay

As you'll note. The similarities between the two, far outweigh the differences.

Again, as I stated to Odrec, who decides whether IGN's review is law?

Who decides that mitu's analysis is law? Like I said, the spreadsheet is basically decided in a biased way by two or three people. There's currently no objective way of deciding if a game is exclusive or not in SW so all amounts to opinions.Odrec

Who decides that mitu's analysis is law? Like I said, the spreadsheet is basically decided in a biased way by two or three people. There's currently no objective way of deciding if a game is exclusive or not in SW so all amounts to opinions.Odrec

I've already answered this question:

[QUOTE="Odrec"]

I don't know. What marks mitu's analysis of GRAW as fact? Is the same kind of analysis.

lundy86_4

I noted this in a later post. The fact that the differences are so apparent (one is FPS, one is TPS), therefore how can they, ever, be seen as the same game with the same core mechanics? Also, the missions are compoletely different, and hold NO similarity to each other whatsoever.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

Odrec

Denoting the core gameplay mechanics to being extremely similar, rather than vastly different is so apparent that subjectivity does not really play a part.

Note these two gameplay videos:

PS3 Gameplay

PS2 Gameplay

As you'll note. The similarities between the two, far outweigh the differences.

Again, as I stated to Odrec, who decides whether IGN's review is law?

anything that puts the 360 over the ps3 must be biased, isn't it?

nice posting of a review. how about you make a list in your own words of the differences. don't include any technical differences.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

i don't know how to approach this. you keep telling me that the games are different just because one looks better than another. :?

CaseyWegner

Honestly, I think what I said stands on its own merit, and I cannot discern what point you are making with the above remark.

BTW, Odrec posted the IGN differences in depth. So it looks like not only signficant graphics and sound differences, but also different features.

I'm not saying that these are different games. I'm saying that to call a very lousy, stripped-down port a "multiplat" is totally deceiving, to the point of intentional deception.

games with bonus features have never been considered exclusive.

Bonus features? Is the difference between the PS2 and PS3 version just bonus features? I honestly don't know what you mean. When you have hugeley different graphics, different sound, and different features, I wouldn't call that a multiplat. It's just very dishonest.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

We're not asking, nor giving a "hard-line interpretation", we are just saying that your points are not enough to validate the game as being significantly different, enough so to promote it being exclusive.

The fact still remains, they are more similar than they are different. You can still achieve a similar core experience from both games.

Like I said, it cannot be held to a standard by your definition and therefore would be different in each individual's opinion. That therefore, does not promote a single list of quantifiable data (ie, a list of exclusives).

lundy86_4

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

Denoting the core gameplay mechanics to being extremely similar, rather than vastly different is so apparent that subjectivity does not really play a part.

Note these two gameplay videos:

PS3 Gameplay

PS2 Gameplay

As you'll note. The similarities between the two, far outweigh the differences.

Again, as I stated to Odrec, who decides whether IGN's review is law?

The similarities between two Madden years are far, far less significant than the videos you just posted, and those truly are different games.

Anyone who claims the PC and 360 versions of GRAW are identical enough to be considered the same game should just admit they've played neither. The fact that they are't even of the same genre should be enough, to say nothing of the totally different game mechanics and mission structure. They don't even share the same engine, for Christ's sakes.

Bonus features? Is the difference between the PS2 and PS3 version just bonus features? I honestly don't know what you mean. When you have hugeley different graphics, different sound, and different features, I wouldn't call that a multiplat. It's just very dishonest.

KristoffBrujah

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Honestly, I think what I said stands on its own merit, and I cannot discern what point you are making with the above remark.

BTW, Odrec posted the IGN differences in depth. So it looks like not only signficant graphics and sound differences, but also different features.

I'm not saying that these are different games. I'm saying that to call a very lousy, stripped-down port a "multiplat" is totally deceiving, to the point of intentional deception.

KristoffBrujah

games with bonus features have never been considered exclusive.

Bonus features? Is the difference between the PS2 and PS3 version just bonus features? I honestly don't know what you mean. When you have hugeley different graphics, different sound, and different features, I wouldn't call that a multiplat. It's just very dishonest.

what features? calling it exclusive is dishonest. they're the same game. look at how the differences between the graw games are described. they are truly different games.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]

Wait-- you're using subjective terminology like "significantly different" and "more similar." Isn't that also subjective?

EDIT: Odrec nailed it. LOL I should have known someone trashed the PS2 version for being obviously (to any reasonable person) inferior and significantly different.

KristoffBrujah

Denoting the core gameplay mechanics to being extremely similar, rather than vastly different is so apparent that subjectivity does not really play a part.

Note these two gameplay videos:

PS3 Gameplay

PS2 Gameplay

As you'll note. The similarities between the two, far outweigh the differences.

Again, as I stated to Odrec, who decides whether IGN's review is law?

The similarities between two Madden years are less significant than the videos you just posted, and those truly are different games.

What are you talking about Madden for? :? They have been multiplat for a long time, due to them playing very much the same. Multiplat isn't determined by similraties in consecutive years, but by the same year across different platforms.

Those videos show the core gameplay of MLB 09: The Show to be very similar.

[QUOTE="Odrec"]

I've already answered this question:

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Odrec"]

I don't know. What marks mitu's analysis of GRAW as fact? Is the same kind of analysis.

lundy86_4

I noted this in a later post. The fact that the differences are so apparent (one is FPS, one is TPS), therefore how can they, ever, be seen as the same game with the same core mechanics? Also, the missions are compoletely different, and hold NO similarity to each other whatsoever.

[QUOTE="KristoffBrujah"]Bonus features? Is the difference between the PS2 and PS3 version just bonus features? I honestly don't know what you mean. When you have hugeley different graphics, different sound, and different features, I wouldn't call that a multiplat. It's just very dishonest.

Stevo_the_gamer

I'm not part of the system wars. I own PS3, 360, and PC. I could give a rat's rear who gets AAAE; hell, I hope they all tie with 20 AAAE at year end so I can game in nirvana for 12 months.

But it's pretty damn chilling to come in here and see some of this behavior. Even to a nerd like me, who just enjoys games, the warped reasoning is so bizarre.

Anyone who claims the PC and 360 versions of GRAW are identical enough to be considered the same game should just admit they've played neither. The fact that they are't even of the same genre should be enough, to say nothing of the totally different game mechanics and mission structure. They don't even share the same engine, for Christ's sakes.

Verge_6

You can play the 360 version as FPS. The fact that it can change perspectives doesn't make it a diffeerent game either since games like Dragon Age on PC where you can play the whole game from the aerial perspective with a lot of adjuested gameplay mechanics for that view unlike consoles doesn't make the game exclusive.Odrec

It's not just the fact that they are different genres. The mission structure is completely different, as is the level design. They are essentially, completely different games, with the same name.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

Anyone who claims the PC and 360 versions of GRAW are identical enough to be considered the same game should just admit they've played neither. The fact that they are't even of the same genre should be enough, to say nothing of the totally different game mechanics and mission structure. They don't even share the same engine, for Christ's sakes.

Odrec