I think that Gears has the better cover system. I think that they're both fairly comparable games though in almost every aspect. They're both among the best of this gen.
RobbRipken's forum posts
Dang it! I'm a Cow and the only reason I was hyping this was because it was exclusive. Now it's not! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I also would like to point out that many Hardcore Lemmings, including S-O were arguing with Kevin V, and claiming bias on Gamespot. Now, Eurogamer, Lens, Gamespot, GT, and more sites have said pretty much the same thing.
Those damage control posts, especially from a few so called 360 owning hermits, claiming GS was alone!... aren't looking so accurate, so SW I ask you to remember those posters now.
Kevin-V
Like the other user stated, I was discussing with Kevin-V if the minor differences really warranted the .5 difference in score. Since the X360 having the edge on performance, was the graphical differences (which are minor) and the loading times (again minor differences) really warrant the X360 version to lose the Editor's choice status? After all, those issues don't directly interfere with the user playing and don't "hamper" the experience like a nasty frame rate can. Case in point: Mass Effect. I was merely surprised that such minor issues like so deserve a game losing that .5
Again, I point out that while .5 seems like a lot, we don't have smaller increments to work with. Perhaps on the old scoring system, the difference was between an 8.9 and a 9. However, I don't have the ability to tweak in that way. I certainly stand behind my thoughts on the matter. Honestly, the PS3 version just eked out the 9, simply because it was nicer to look at and loading times were slightly more bearable. I disagree with the poster who thinks that frame rate issues are more important in a game like DA, however. Dragon is an RPG in which you spend large amounts of time in dialogue, looking at characters at close range. The combat does not hinge on maximizing the frame rate. In Mass Effect, where combat functions as a third-person shooter, frame rate is important. In Dragon Age, where the frame rate is not going to affect your precision, it matters very little.And thus, frame rate problems won't be mentioned every time. it comes down to how much the issues effect the experience. To the poster who said it didn't matter in No More Heroes, well, that is silly. There is a bad entry right at the top regarding the frame rate; I clearly state that it can be erratic in No More Heroes--a game in which the issue rarely hinders the fun. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: Reviews aren't algebra. There is not a formula in which I plug in scores for framerate, voice acting, texture pop-in, and collision detection, and out pops a handy number we slap on a review. There is an entire experience at work here--an overall impression that is discerned from the sum of its parts. It is about what sticks out... what impaired your enjoyment, what elevated above other games, what stuck in your craw and what made it easy to overlook the flaws. This isn't math--it is evaluation.
As such, there is a written review to accompany the score, and it is up to you to decide how important the pros and cons described matter to you. If you don't care about teh pretty, then you can disregard the differences. I realize this is System Wars, where only score matters. But use your noggins. There was a big written review that detailed what I thought about Dragon Age. And it clearly mentioned that the PS3 version looks somewhat better, and the Xbox 360 version runs a little better. Using those words, you can decide which version is best for you. From our perspective, we all feel the PS3 version edges out the 360 version, and feel the difference is enough to affect the score. But we're not mind-readers. It's up to you to apply a little grey matter, read the review, and make a decision informed by more than a simple number.
You are welcome to disagree, but I didn't pull these scores out of my ass--they came after long discussions with my peers, and an office-wide look at both versions.
For what it's worth, I was mostly kidding about the No More Heroes comment. Though I do disagree with some of the reviews lately, mostly with GTA IV and MGS4 getting 10s. I played both of them, and liked both of them, but I personally don't believe any game should get 10. For the record, I think Kevin V is a good reviewer, though I disagree with the actual scores he gives some of the time, I do think he looks at a lot of the right things, and gives people a good idea of what's good and bad in a particular game. Regardless of any disagreement I have though, I go by GS before I'd go with any other review site. I trust their judgement as a whole. I've made a lot of purchases this generation based on their reviews, and I've been happy with just about all of them.
Another thing I'd like to add, I played (the PS3 Version) on normal, I didn't think it was too bad in terms of difficulty,until the final boss, I eventually got frustrated. I think that the difficulty jump was fairly extreme. I'd spent a good amount of time doing side quests, so I felt like I should've been able to handle it no problem, I ended up just switching the difficulty down. I picked the wrong party members. With better choices I could have doneit. Bottum Line: I'm glad I'm not the only one that had issues there.
One last thing I'd like to add, Kevin V pointed out that 8.9 (GREAT)games should NOT be made 9.0 (superb) by rounding up. I completely agree there. That wouldn't be very accurate.
My List
1. Mass Effect 2
2. Alan Wake
3. Halo: Reach (too little info)
4. Modnation Racers (love kart racers)
5. Fable 3
6. Super Mario Galaxy
7. Final Fantasy XIII
8. Heavy Rain
9. The Last Guardian
10. GOW 3
I got this game for the PS3 and beat it already. However, after seeing that video, I'm questioning how there's a difference in review score. The PS3 version doesn't look much better, but the difference in performance is fairly noteworthy. Or at least, IMO, MORE noteworthy than the graphical difference. That's just another inconsistancy in GS reviews lately. Framerate problems matter in Mass Effect (8.5), but not in No More Heroes (9.0)lol, or in this game.
I'd LOVE to see Kameo 2. The first one was a blast. However, I don't think I'd want that game to use Natal. Killer Instinct is something that's on a lot of people's minds, if it would sell, I'd be happy for Rare to make it. Their games lately haven't been selling as well as they deserve. I wouldn't particularly care about a new Perfect Dark game, but if they wanna make it, I'll still probably get it.
I'd really like to see some new IPs. But what I think would be really interesting, is if Rare would make a kart racer. It's something that could work with Natal, it'd be another family friendly game for 360, and it'd be something the Xbox 360 really doesn't have.
Halo 3, Gears 1 & 2, Halo 3:ODST, Fable 2, Mass Effect, Banjo, Kameo
vs
Uncharted 1 & 2, Heavenly Sword, MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance 1 & 2, Ratchet and Clank: ToD, Ratchet and Clank: CIT, Infamous, and Demon's Souls
vs
Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes
I think if we're comparing only SP experiences, the PS3 wins. Each system has it's strengths, I think SP is PS3's. Online MP is Xbox 360's. Offline MP/Casual Gaming is Wii's.
Graphics: Great, especially from an artistic standpoint.
Sound: Solid Voicework, strong sound effects, outstanding music.
Gameplay: IMO the best at what it does.
Campaign: It has a much stronger story than the other shooters out there (even if you wanna argue it's not a great story). Gameplay is paced better with shooting, vechicle segments etc. Other shooters just don't pace themselves as well.
Multiplayer: The best...more players =/= better. Quality = better
Nintendo 64: A+
Pros: Some of the greatest games of all time.
Con: Used cartridges
Playstation 2: B-
Pros: Amazing Library of Games, DVD Player. From beginning to end of last gen, we saw a HUGE leap in graphical quality of games. Games have good production values. Had online play (though not as good as xbox).
Cons: Most of those games were terrible. Bad ports of games. Weakest system of last gen. Took a year or so to get momentum. Sometimes Sony games favor production values > gameplay.
Gamecube: B
Pros: Great first party games. Some of the most memorable games of last gen. Strong graphical capabilities.
Cons: Bad third party. No dvd player. Bad ports of games. Production values didn't always keep up with times (beyond graphics, many of their games had midi files and no voicework).
Xbox: B+
Pros: Good third party, often recieved superior versions of games. Had a good library overall. Probably the most powerful system of last gen. DVD player. One of the first consoles to really jump into online gaming. Strong production values in games.
Cons: It took a long time to get going strong, all it had was Halo for a long time. Hardware could have been better.
Wii: C
Pros: Top tier Nintendo games are always at a certain level of quality. Innovation with the Wiimote. Improved production values this gen. Finally stepped into online gaming. Strong emphasis on personal preferences, giving players multiple ways of playing games (wiimote, classic or GC controller). Cheapest console this gen. Reliable hardware.
Cons: Third part support is bad. Wii has mediocre online play without voicechat as a standard. Weakest system from a power standpoint. No dvd player.
Playstation 3: B-
Pros:Blu ray player, dvd player. Strong library of exclusives including a large list of new IPs. Sony's games have greatly improved over last gen in terms of gameplay. Most powerful system. Sony has stepped up their online game a great deal. Incredible production values. Console is constantly improving in all aspects. Has the most momentum currently.
Cons: Hardware could be better (I've had one die on me). Games have a tendancy to be derivative of other games (though not bad by any means). Sony's online features have pretty much just taken everything M$ has done and copy-pasted it, unfortunately not doing it as well (excluding Home in this statement, just talking about features). Voice chat is not a standard. Most expensive console. Took a long time to get momentum going.
Xbox 360: B+
Pros: Dvd Player. Strongest third party support, usually gets best versions of games (though that appears to be changing to a degree). Good balance in games of production values and gameplay. Standard setting online service wherevoicechat IS a standard. Strong top tier titles. Had a great start to the generation.
Cons: Poor Hardware (Had two die on me). M$ hasn't put enough emphasis on first party, and isn't coming us with enough NEW IPs (at least not when you look at what Sony has accomplished so far this gen). Losing momentum quickly.
Bottum Line for me- the Xbox 360 IMO is the best console right now from the standpoint of games, but the PS3 is quickly gaining momentum and improving. I feel that theM$ isn't doing enough to improve upon their console. Nintendo is doing their own thing, and they've alienated a lot of the hardcore gamers out there. I feel like Nintendo is starting to learn their lesson though. M$ could turn things around with games that deliver next year, as well as a good E3 showing. We'll see.
Kameo: Elements of Power - Legend Unfolds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcN-iXb4SY8
Kameo: Elements of Power - Hero's Theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9BE3H01-g&feature=related
Halo 3- Follow Our Brothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPVO4ICbWIA
Halo 3- Finish The Fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsFk_5CoQ-I
Super Mario Galaxy- Gusty Garden Galaxy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1338WFryy8
Super Mario Galaxy- Good Egg Galaxy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hJz8xFyHw
Super Mario Galaxy- Battlerock Galaxy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV-98cI24hw&feature=related
Mass Effect- Spectre Induction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L_X1srpocM
Morrowind- Main Theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsEtbtz2Kk&feature=related
Log in to comment