Interesting that Gamespot is the only gaming site not covering this yet and kept locking threads about it...

FYI - 1UP posted an article indicating that Jeff wasn't just fired because of the Kane & Lynch review but also because Sony had complained recently about the 7.5 Ratchet and Clank review. How much do you want to bet that every EIDOS and Sony game scores at least a8.0 from Gamespot in the future?

I used to respect Gamespot reviews above all other sites because they had a better perspective and didn't over-rate games like Zelda just because of fear of corporate and fanboy backlash (frankly the 8.8 for Zeldawas too high). EIDOS and Sony have shown how cynical they truly are and share some blame for their despicable pressure tactics - shame on Gamespot and Cnet for caving into it.

I have been a paid subscriber for 5-1/2 years and will not renew now. Best wishes to Jeff.

The revival tent Nintendophiles sure are out in force on this one. First of all, reviews are subjective. Secondly, 8.5 is an excellent score. If you examine Gamespot's review history you'll see that they tend to have a bit more perspective than most fanboy websites and score games more realistically across the board. There are many reviewers who get caught up in the hype or fear backlash from hardcore fans of a particular franchise/platform and inflate the scores.

In retrospect, Gamespot scores tend to hold up the best in the long-term when people move on to the next big thing and realize that not every hyped game is worth a 9.5 or 10. I remember when Gamespot gave Zelda an 8.8 and you would have thought they committed heresay based on Nintendophile backlash. However, after a few months almost every major publication/website acknowledged in their podcasts that they over-rated the game as it had far too many flaws (terrible pacing, muddy graphics, atrocious A/I, lack of voice acting, rudimentary physics, dated sound effects, etc.) to deserve the average rating it achieved in relation to other games being released at that time.

I'm sure MP3 is a solid game and I'm picking it up myself, but just adding Wii controls isn't going to elevate this franchise beyond the 8.5 range. For multiplatform gamers like myself, it is easier to have more perspective and view the total value in comparison to other games on all platforms (i.e. Bioshock). Just play the game and decide for yourself what you think of it and hopefully we'll all enjoy the experience. A little maturity and perspective may be in order though...

I personally like them both, but lets hear what everyone else thinks. 

guitarman1603

 Wow, you're kidding right?  There's no comparison.  Live has a unified experience across ALL games which supports cross-game voicechat, unified friends list, demos for all Arcade games, and a plethora of content (demos, arcade games, trailers, movies, tv shows).  PS3's online experience varies greatly from game to game - some don't support voice chat, none offer cross-game voice chat, you can't see what your friends are always playing and invite them, etc. and the PSN store is a ghost town.  Sony should have established a set of rules up front so the experience would be consistent.  Even if they improve things after HOME releases there will be a years worth of games already released which are not compatible.

I was pondering on this while on a 4 hour car ride D-pad - walk/strafe Control stick- look around Wiimote+sensor bar - aim This would allow us to play FP games with melee weapons as well(Elder Scrolls, Condemned etc.)kuenbre

Nice idea, but I think it is too non-intuitive for most people and the learning curve makes you think about the controls too much rather than what's happening in the game.  Wii was supposed to make gaming more accessible but it's become apparent that the non-ergonomic layout of buttons prevents it from being viable for certain genres (like FPS).  The traditional 2-stick and nearby triggers/face buttons are the only way for an FPS to work on a console.

I think only rail type shooters (like on Rayman or the upcoming Touch the Dead on DS) are the only shooters which make sense on Wii.  Either that, or they can just require the classic controller or GC controller for FPS games on this system.

[QUOTE="grognard"][QUOTE="sonofares"][QUOTE="dustin-diamond"]

Anybody else notice this?

ghaleon0721

Well, it's not that difficult to figure out.  First of all is the PRICE.  Secondly, there are very few good games right now.  And even fewer games EXCLUSIVE to the PS3.  I have a PS3 and XBOX360 but if a game is on both systems I will be more inclined to purchase the 360 version because I feel like I'm getting more for my money.  With the 360 version when you put time into playing the game and do good you are rewarded with achievements....it's a bonus aspect of the 360 experience that really does make a big difference; an important difference.  You feel like you've actually accomplished something.  Whereas if the same game is on the PS3 and you do good or beat the game you don't see any visual recognition for this.....yet.  Hopefully with HOME coming out on the PS3 soon this will change.  But for now....those are the reasons it's not selling as good.  PRICE and FEW GAMES.  Honestly, most of the exclusive launch games were pretty crappy except for RFOM. 

You make a lot of assumptions which explains your pathetic debating skills and alarming lack of logic.  I never stated I got the PS3 for third-party exclusives.  I got it for Sony FIRST party exclusives and those are obviously going to remain exclusive unless Sony goes the way of Sega.  Gaming has been my primary hobby for over 20 years so I don't mind paying $600 for a few quality games like God of War, etc.