I don't get this logic from gamespot

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

EDIT:You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

I wonder and post the same thing0, but Kevin V doesn't seem to see my posts...just a coincidence maybe?

And you care about scores if you like the game why?lucarocks1

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on360 and 8.5 on PS3, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

Well if it makes you feel better, Bayonetta, Orange Box, and Fallout3 all scored higher on 360.

Plus Final Fantasy XIII, which is now well known to be better on PS3 got the same score for both versions on GS.

I seriously have no idea why GS sometimes gives different scores for a PS360 game due to performance and graphics differences, then give both versions the same score for a different game that also has noticeable differences???

I think they just flip a coin. Heads:same score, Tails: different score:P

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on PS3 and 8.5 on 360, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

calvinsora

And the latest 360 fan response to Final Fantasy XIII looking better on PS3 is that graphics don't matter, only the framerate matters:roll:

And as time goes by and PS3 games keep looking better, the situation on system wars is only gonna get worse:?

The logic is we need some games on each platform to take a fall once in a while to level the playfield and get fanboys off our backs. Have a nice day:)

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on PS3 and 8.5 on 360, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

mztazmz

And the latest 360 fan response to Final Fantasy XIII looking better on PS3 is that graphics don't matter, only the framerate matters:roll:

And as time goes by and PS3 games keep looking better, the situation on system wars is only gonna get worse:?

An ugly truth indeed. Ah, can't we all just get along? *realize that I'm in System Wars, leave*

Meh just read or watch the review, the numbers are meaningless compared to the facts. I don't understand why FF got the same score if there is such a noticeable drop in resolution.

Meh just read or watch the review, the numbers are meaningless compared to the facts. I don't understand why FF got the same score if there is such a noticeable drop in resolution.

SapSacPrime

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

hysam20241

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on PS3 and 8.5 on 360, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

mztazmz

And the latest 360 fan response to Final Fantasy XIII looking better on PS3 is that graphics don't matter, only the framerate matters:roll:

And as time goes by and PS3 games keep looking better, the situation on system wars is only gonna get worse:?

Framerate does matter a whole lot if the game you are playing involves split second timing.

But I forgot, Bayonetta and FF13 are EXACTLY alike.

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on PS3 and 8.5 on 360, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

heretrix

And the latest 360 fan response to Final Fantasy XIII looking better on PS3 is that graphics don't matter, only the framerate matters:roll:

And as time goes by and PS3 games keep looking better, the situation on system wars is only gonna get worse:?

Framerate does matter a whole lot if the game you are playing involves split second timing.

But I forgot, Bayonetta and FF13 are EXACTLY alike.

I never mentioned FF13 :? I don't think the difference should impact the score at all, the difference is negligible. I was just explaining that there was also a noticeable difference in DA:O on the PS3 when compared to the 360. I know that Bayonetta has a score of problems, like long load times, choppy framerate, etc. Don't accuse me of something I never said. The OP is complaining about something which goes both ways. Fallout 3 is worse on PS3, thus it gets a lower score. Same thing with DA:O, but heaven forbid he actually noticed that in his fanboyish comment.

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

Meh just read or watch the review, the numbers are meaningless compared to the facts. I don't understand why FF got the same score if there is such a noticeable drop in resolution.

SaltyMeatballs

Could care less about the score.

Still don't wanna play dragon age origins.

You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

Logic? On my Gamespot? I think not ...

What about FF13, The Saboteur (sad that no one played this) or Prototype?

Let's not forget the PS3 ports which has more content and getting a facelift.

You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

hysam20241

Oh dont worry, lower scores mean the game doesnt live up to its platform as well, thats why PC always get gipped with lower scores yet is superior with everything :P

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

Meh just read or watch the review, the numbers are meaningless compared to the facts. I don't understand why FF got the same score if there is such a noticeable drop in resolution.

Chutebox

It is true that the only differences are graphical, if you have any evidence to the contrary please feel free to share it.

Kevin talked about this after the review came out. If you really care that much find the thread.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] It's not noticeable (besides the CGI quality). He probably went to Digital Foundry :P and the overall game experience is the same.Snugenz

It is true that the only differences are graphical, if you have any evidence to the contrary please feel free to share it.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] People keep saying this, but it's just not true.Chutebox

It is true that the only differences are graphical, if you have any evidence to the contrary please feel free to share it.

It's definitely noticeable but not to the extremes that some people make out and yeah sound is definitely better forgot to include it in my post. :D

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

EDIT:You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

hysam20241

You are fogetting one very important fact! Reviews are opinions. Therefore they are up to your interpretation. If you belive frame is more important than graphics then you base your purchase on that. Atleast they are giving different scores. Last console wars PS2 and Xbox were generally given identical scores even when PS2 games looked inferior in graphics. The reality is very few multiplats will be different. Sony's and MS owned games will shine. Like Gears of War and God of War.

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

EDIT:You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

atarigrad

You are fogetting one very important fact! Reviews are opinions. Therefore they are up to your interpretation. If you belive frame is more important than graphics then you base your purchase on that. Atleast they are giving different scores. Last console wars PS2 and Xbox were generally given identical scores even when PS2 games looked inferior in graphics. The reality is very few multiplats will be different. Sony's and MS owned games will shine. Like Gears of War and God of War.

I just said in my open post, logical inconsistencies like this are NOT opinionated.

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

EDIT:You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

hysam20241

The 360 version of dragon age does have a better framerate, but the PS3 version is not average 15 fps lower, more like 5-6. The PS3 version had better loading times and graphics thus the higher score, sort of can be looked at like: 2 pros vs 1 pro. (http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16618)

Its the same with MW2, 360 has a slightly higher framerate, graphics for both versions were near identical. But the differences were not big enough to warrant different scores for different versions.

In all honesty, if you like to play games, you really shouldn't care about review scores.

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

jwsoul

i dont get it myself i think they should stop doing that all together but i dont take any gaming site seriously i just come here cause im bored

Well if there is anything that detracts from enjoying the game on 360 that didn't affect the PS3 version then it deserves a lower score.

After reading over this thread, I couldn't believe how illogical some of you guys are. The ps3 version of a multiplatform game should get a higher (or at least same) score if the ps3 version of the game is better than the 360 version in most/all aspects of the game. the ps3 version looks slightly better than the 360 version but at a cost of every other aspect of the game. You can more easily make the argument the 360 version of the game is Superior, but simply going out of your way to give the ps3 version a higher score because of that one reason is absurd.

Does a game like Dragon Age need a silky frame rate?tomarlyn

Well the xbox 360 has no AAAAE game anyways.

Well the xbox 360 has no AAAAE game anyways.

Megaman5364

Yes but that does not effect me because I don't have a 360. I'm just seeing things as they are and I hate logical inconsistencies from professional reviewers.

i hate the fact that when some one makes a topic like "ps3 don't have games" it become an instant 500 topic (rather than just being ignored), but a legitimate argument like this is, instead, being the one that's ignored.

They utilize the same logic to give Bayonetta a 9.0 on 360 and an 8.0 on PS3, to give Fallout 3 a 9.0 on360 and 8.5 on PS3, Orange Box 9.5 on 360, 9.0 on PS3. When games get higher on 360, it's logical, but if one game gets a higher score on PS3 (and an even higher score on PC), it becomes illogical? Please explain your logic.

calvinsora

There have also been cases where the 360's score is higher than the PS3's score and it never explains it in the review :? I can't remember any games off the top of my head, but I know it's happened before.

There have also been cases where the 360's score is higher than the PS3's score and it never explains it in the review :? I can't remember any games off the top of my head, but I know it's happened before.

Ospov

Thats the problem. As reviewers, they should explain such things. isn't that why we are supposively"relying" on them for their reviews.

Why did they go out of their way to give the xbox 360 version of dragon age a lower score than the ps3 version. The ps3 version looks slightly better but the ps3 version on average runs at 15 fps lower which is much more noticeable (and has a larger impact on a person gaming experience). It really feels like gamespot is being very unprofessional with their comparison.

There are many instances of games where the 360 looked better and performed better and yet recieved the same score (i.e. MW2) which is totaly fine. It really makes me distrust gamespots reviews because this logicalinconsistency is NOT opinionated.

EDIT:You guys aren't getting it. Every single game the xbox 360 scored higher in had better frame rates and better graphics (i.e bayonette and fallout 3). Even if they had the same frame rate and better graphics there could be an arguement for a better score but not when you have lower framerates.

Btw I have a ps3 but not a 360 so I am not a fanboy, I just hate logical inconsistancies from these so-called paid professionals.

hysam20241

This is funny, because of this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27323609&tag=topics;title

Apparently, the reviewer felt that the visuals were more important than the frame rate in that particular game.

This is funny, because of this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27323609&tag=topics;title

Apparently, the reviewer felt that the visuals were more important than the frame rate in that particular game.

Pug-Nasty

This particular topic is about 2 months old. i bumped it up because its summer for me and I have time to argue :P.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

This is funny, because of this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27323609&tag=topics;title

Apparently, the reviewer felt that the visuals were more important than the frame rate in that particular game.

hysam20241

This particular topic is about 2 months old. i bumped it up because its summer for me and I have time to argue :P.

So, does the lapse in time make your thought processes on these two instances less hypocritical? Just checking.

[QUOTE="hysam20241"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

This is funny, because of this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27323609&tag=topics;title

Apparently, the reviewer felt that the visuals were more important than the frame rate in that particular game.

Pug-Nasty

This particular topic is about 2 months old. i bumped it up because its summer for me and I have time to argue :P.

So, does the lapse in time make your thought processes on these two instances less hypocritical? Just checking.

What does hypocrisy have to do with anything?