Lies/contradictions told by repeatable games sites/reviewers

Why is it that the gamesites that keep the console war going cannot even play fair? Are game sites trying to influance the outcome of the console war and what have they got to gain by doing this?

and why do most of these "mistakes" happen at the expence of the PS3?

add you own gamesite/reviewers lies and contradictions

•1. The GRiD comparison - Game trailers used PS3 for both sides of the footage then claimed the 360 version was superior.

http://www.psu.com/GRiD-PS3360-comparison-video----or-is-it-News--a0003608-p0.php

•2. Kaza Mc Donald - Reviewed "Zack & Wiki for both IGN and Eurogamer giving them both different scores

IGN - 9.1

Eurogamer - 8

Credit goes to "FLOPPY JIM"

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=88551

http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/845/845282p1.html

•3. Gamespot contradicts itself and says in the Burnout paradise review

"The PlayStation 3 version looks maybe a hair crisper than the 360 version, but that's about the only visual difference to speak of."

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/burnout5/review.html

But then in the comparison says

"The PlayStation 3's images seem to be a bit blurrier than the Xbox 360"

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6191251/p-5.html

•4. IGNgave 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 and search skate the video game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?board_id=909102863&topic_id=25949054

GS changing GTA4 score from 9.5 to 10

Explanation provided by GS

http://uk.gamespot.com/users/RicardoT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25399424

I have also read about GT saying the framerate in devil May Cry 4 was lower on the PS3 but they was proved wrong but I cannot find a link so I did not include it. I also remember IGN stating something about Madden a year ago to be proved wrong but I also cannot find the link so if you do please add them.

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Interesting read, odd how the PS3 version of Burnout is both crisper and blurrier at the same time. This Kaza MacDonald thing is also interesting (I'm the guy who uncovered that :D). Floppy_Jim

Ive added you to the source mate, good find by the way

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]Interesting read, odd how the PS3 version of Burnout is both crisper and blurrier at the same time. This Kaza MacDonald thing is also interesting (I'm the guy who uncovered that :D). anthonydwyer

Ive added you to the source mate, good find by the way

Cool, thanks. I just hope the mods don't lock this.

The Madden things was never proven wrong....all EA Sports games last year ran at 60 FPS on the 360 and only 30 FPS on the PS3. Your other points are interesting, but you really have nothing with Madden. Also, you may want to change the word in the thread title from "repeatable" to "reputable." I think that's what you had in mind.BigJerm1

The thing I was talking about was somthing to do with shadows not framerate mate sorry for not pointing it out.

You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. PBSnipes

???? while you point is logical you got to remember the person reviewing the game is human

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. anthonydwyer

???? while you point is logical you got to remember the person reviewing the game is human

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. PBSnipes

???? while you point is logical you got to remember the person reviewing the game is human

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

if you get us a link i will add it to the top

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

anthonydwyer

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. anthonydwyer

???? while you point is logical you got to remember the person reviewing the game is human

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

yeah wow nice one i dunno wether it counts but gamespot changing their 9.5 of GTA4 to a 10...?crunchUK

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. anthonydwyer

???? while you point is logical you got to remember the person reviewing the game is human

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

So they use a similar numbering system, the criteria which the scores are based upon could be completely different focusing on different aspects of a game. Since IGN use decimal scores that would indicate they prefer to put a more precise score on a game than Eurogamer, showing they may choose to review games more in-depth.

The contradiction about Burnout is flawed. In the review they say maybe, indicating no signs of certainty. Even in the comparison they say that the graphical differences are only barely noticeable when you zoom in on specific details.

Uncharted Drake Fortune-Marked down for being too hard

Ratchet and Clank TOD -Marked down for being too easy

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

PBSnipes

you are giving the reveiwer to much credit if what you are saying is true whay did EG and IGN both give GTA 10/10, even with the decimal and using you logic GTA should never of got a 10 on EG if their standards are higher then IGNs

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

anthonydwyer

you are giving the reveiwer to much credit if what you are saying is true whay did EG and IGN both give GTA 10/10, even with the decimal and using you logic GTA should never of got a 10 on EG if their standards are higher then IGNs

Because it might be such a great game. They use different standards but that doesn't mean that no game can get a high score from them.JLF1

GTA4 is overated on a gamesite that has high standards I would of expected it to get a 8 or 9 not a 10

also remember EG gave frontline a 10/10 rating when IGN gave it a 7.9 and GS a 8.5 and that game was not that great

GTA4 is overated on a gamesite that has high standards I would of expected it to get a 8 or 9 not a 10anthonydwyer

Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. Kevin-V

but can you explain burnout paradise contraditction BUM BUM BUNA!

Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. Kevin-V

I've got my tinfoil hat on and I'm *watching you*. My horoscope, and psychic hotline, both warned me about your ninja-like trickery. You just wait until I call Geraldo - when this conspiracy breaks it will be all over the five-o-clock news. I know all about your consorting with the *alien overlords* who run Sony and Microsoft, who bribed you into changing the review score to a 10.0 so they could get more of our earth monies!

We're doomed, tell your friends, stock up on canned food, barracade your doors - don't watch TV - GameSpot is encoding *subliminal messages* that are going to GET YOU! Take off your mask and show us your REAL FACE alien! Show them who you really are Kevin-V - or should I say Glibmonger-Q of the Omacron Persi Nebula?

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]yeah wow nice one i dunno wether it counts but gamespot changing their 9.5 of GTA4 to a 10...?PBSnipes

explained?? man i'm out of touch :P i had no idea

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]GTA4 is overated on a gamesite that has high standards I would of expected it to get a 8 or 9 not a 10PBSnipes

yes I understand what you are saying but this review is done by the same person, if the review was done by two different people I would agree 100% with you.

But like you said IGN use a decimal point hence the 9.1 and EG dont making it impossible to give it the same score. However as a human being I dont think the same reviewer would make such a drastic change in score just because EG is tougher human error would mean that on EG it got a 9 because the reviewer was the same person and you cannot tell me they played though the same game again to do two seperate reivews. the both reviews would have been written based on the same play though.

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"][QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

JLF1

you are giving the reveiwer to much credit if what you are saying is true whay did EG and IGN both give GTA 10/10, even with the decimal and using you logic GTA should never of got a 10 on EG if their standards are higher then IGNs

Ic where your coming from and I agree about the different standart but euragamer and edge are a bit weird and sum is up...If we go by your logic a 8 is technically a AAA since geow and mgs4 got an 8 from those sites but got ratings of 9-10 everywhere else. This all seems ok right but grid got a 9 recently, by that logic grid should be getting a 10 or very high 9s which I doubt it will get...Something is wrong with the standart of that side and it just dosent add up with the other reviewers.

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"][QUOTE="PBSnipes"][QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

they both review games out of 10, you can expect this coming from the same reviewer, if one used a A,B,C system or a 5/5 you would be right, but their systems are nearly the same.

JLF1

you are giving the reveiwer to much credit if what you are saying is true whay did EG and IGN both give GTA 10/10, even with the decimal and using you logic GTA should never of got a 10 on EG if their standards are higher then IGNs

Ic where your coming from and I agree about the different standart but euragamer and edge are a bit weird and sum is up...If we go by your logic a 8 is technically a AAA since geow and mgs4 got an 8 from those sites but got ratings of 9-10 everywhere else. This all seems ok right but grid got a 9 recently, by that logic grid should be getting a 10 or very high 9s which I doubt it will get...Something is wrong with the standart of that side and it just dosent add up with the other reviewers.

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

dream431ca

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

subrosian

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

Ya, but there are specific settings on each console (depending on what cable you are using) that can make games look a little better.

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

dream431ca

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

Ya, but there are specific settings on each console (depending on what cable you are using) that can make games look a little better.

wow subrosian misinterpreted someone else's post. usually he's way too smart looking for his own good. what the guy meant was every review site should use the same tv's and settings. he's not talking about specifically one site. that way graphical differences between sites would happen less often. tho i personally think graphics shouldn't even be part of a review and it shouldn't matter anyways

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

dream431ca

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

Ya, but there are specific settings on each console (depending on what cable you are using) that can make games look a little better.

Running each console using the same cable into the same port on the same TV makes for a pretty fair comparison. There's no setting on a TV that makes up for AA being on one game, and not on another, or post-processing effects enabled in one version of a game, and not in another.

There's no menu option on my HDTV that says "make the framerate on the _________ version of this game not suck".

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

enygma500

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

Ya, but there are specific settings on each console (depending on what cable you are using) that can make games look a little better.

wow subrosian misinterpreted someone else's post. usually he's way too smart looking for his own good. what the guy meant was every review site should use the same tv's and settings. he's not talking about specifically one site. that way graphical differences between sites would happen less often. tho i personally think graphics shouldn't even be part of a review and it shouldn't matter anyways

I understand exactly what he's saying, and the reality is it doesn't matter. The performance of most LCD HDTVs is about the same - so long as that review site is using the same TV for all of their systems, it would not make a difference in comparisson between games.

It would certainly be unfair if an Xbox 360 hooked into a ten-year old SDTV was compared to a PS3 hooked into a 50" 1080p HDTV - the reality is, both system will be hooked into the same high-end set, and compared. As far as the idea of a console getting a "performance boost" on certain TVs or Speakers or what not - 99.9% of that is utter hogwash (marketing) more than engineering "fact".

"But we should have a reviewing gold standard! The same setup for every reviewer!" is simply silly - would every gamer have that same setup as well? No - the comparisson is "how good does each system look on the same set" - so long as game reviewers are using HDTVs and surround sound, we're fine.

-

One of the problems with the whole "train of logic" that the idea spurs from is the idea that reviews are (or even can be) purely objective. Even when reviewers work in teams it's impossible for there to be a "standard" - sometimes sites agree and give games similar scores - sometimes those scores are all over the place, a game can have "mixed reviews". A reviewer strives to remove bias, but at the end of the day there is a fair degree of subjectivity involved in the review-process.

yes I understand what you are saying but this review is done by the same person, if the review was done by two different people I would agree 100% with you.

But like you said IGN use a decimal point hence the 9.1 and EG dont making it impossible to give it the same score. However as a human being I dont think the same reviewer would make such a drastic change in score just because EG is tougher human error would mean that on EG it got a 9 because the reviewer was the same person and you cannot tell me they played though the same game again to do two seperate reivews. the both reviews would have been written based on the same play though.

anthonydwyer

9.0 to 9.4 (Outstanding)
If a game scores a 9.0 or better, you know it's a worthwhile experience with just a few imperfections. Games of this caliber are also must-haves, even if you're not particularly fond of the genre.

From Eurogamer's scoring system:

Eight is that tricky "almost brilliant" category, that for fans of the genre in most cases will still warrant serious recommendation to go out and buy, while even people into other genres will probably still draw plenty of enjoyment from. You should at the very least try and play the demo, borrow it or rent it first, but bear in mind that it's not necessarily going to appeal to every person who plays it.

There may be stand out moments spoiled by badly judged difficulty spikes, or numerous other minor and niggly factors that gang up and chip off another mark.

Seem pretty similar to me.

I think that SOME of the these contradictions show that the reviewers are people and people are fickle. Their thoughts, ideas and opinions change constantly. They do not take their own past ideas and thoughts into account when reviewing some games. This, IMO, is fine because there are very few instances where a review has affected my game purchasing habits. If I think I will like a game, I will buy it, play it, and make my own opinion.

On the other hand there are those times, like the GRiD fiasco or the Burnout review, which make me question the reviewing/previewing process as a whole. It just makes me question their bias or how well they write the reviews in the first place.

Overall, reviewers are people and more specifically gamers. ALL gamers have a bias of some sort and as for reviewers they have to hide whatever their own bias is. I would just encourage everyone not to put a whole lot of weight on reviews and just go with their guts on what games you should be purchasing.

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Arjdagr8

You are taking that review out of context by simplifying the argument.

They said that the variety is used to no good effect, that it was just variety for the sake of variety and inhibited the game's sense of focus. Variety in of itself does not improve a game, it is how the variety effects the experience.

There is a stark difference between what the review said and how you represented the argument they put forth.

This kind of spin has been used to defend Uncharted too and it gets rather tiresome.

[QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Tragic_Kingdom7

You are taking that review out of context by simplifying the argument.

They said that the variety is used to no good effect, that it was just variety for the sake of variety and inhibited the game's sense of focus. Variety in of itself does not improve a game, it is how the variety effects the experience.

There is a stark difference between what the review said and how you represented the argument they put forth.

This kind of spin has been used to defend Uncharted too and it gets rather tiresome.

but it was put to good effect...

Uncharted Drake Fortune-Marked down for being too hard

Ratchet and Clank TOD -Marked down for being too easy

numba1234

More propoganda.

Uncharted was marked down not for being too hard, but because the gunplay was too hard in relation to the platforming, which was easy. This created an inbalance. Why do you insist on putting words into their mouths?

And they were perfectly justified in marking down R&C for being too easy. The game was laughably easy to the point that there was barely any sense of danger.