Metacritic: 2009 multiplat games better on the PS3

In this present gaming age where developers do not have the luxury of a ready audience of well in excess of 100 million Playstation 2 owners and with the added developmental costs associated with videogames for this generation, many developers have turned to releasing their titles on multiple gaming consoles to expand their audience. While this ultimately enriches the gaming landscape as more gamers are able to play the latest titles it has also created a riff within the gaming community, a riff that centers around debate regarding the quality of multiconsole releases on Sony's Playstation 3 versus Microsoft's older Xbox 360.

[N4PS3G]

simple..the xbox version haves more reviews and and console only sites scores change the overall score because you can't expect a PSM review of 7/10 to be added to the xbox verion or a OXM review of 8/10 to be added to the ps3 verions.

for example

Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood haves 53 reviews for the xbox 360 version
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

=77

and only 31 reviews for the ps3 version
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

=78

a whooping 22 less reviews for the ps3 version.

Another Example:

Prototype 360- 78 with 77 reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Prototype PS3- 80 with only 48 reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/g...

a whooping 29 less reviews for the ps3 version.

or the fact the Metacritic is too lazy too add reviews to both sides

Example: Destructoid didn't do specific version reviews for call of juarez and gave the game a sad 2/10 and Metacritic instead of adding the score to both console ..they added the score only to the 360 version.

Metacritic system is faulty.

[Anon1974]

I have to disagree. As the article mentions, metacritic is highly regarded in the industry and the beauty of averaging the scores means that the extremes of both super high and super low scores are evened out over time. Far more useful then one off reviews from just one or two sites.
Edit: Argue all you want, but companies take it seriously. Microsoft was planning on using metacritic scores to decide which games to take off XBL, and early metacritic scores have been known to influence stock prices. It's not a perfect system, but Metacritic scores are something to be taken seriously.
Edit Below: But it is math. Simply because you have more reviews doesn't automatically mean you'll have a lower score. If a game has more reviews and the reviews all love it then the score's going to be the same as if only 2 reviewers love it. And Gamespot and IGN have never pulled punches when it came to one version being superior to another. More often then not they score the game the same because the differences between the two don't warrant any differently.

[N4PS3G]

I'm just using my logic man. People can't seriously expect a game with double the amount or reviews to outscore the other version.

20+ and 30+ less reviews do make a difference. Believe me.

If you check site by site reviews. They mostly award the same score to both versions. for Example IGN or Gamespot.

For this article to be true ..it needs to prove that games are scoring higher on ps3 but when you go to metacritic and compare scores they are mostly the same. The difference is the amount of reviews a version gets and the official sites scores that always differ.

with some simple math people can understand that its harder to maintain a score when you have a higher amount of reviews.

I'm not saying metacritic can't be taken seriously. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Metacritic is indeed used by companies or that they do use it to pound their chest when they get better scores what i'm just saying is that the overall score does not make a game better on a console because you need to take in consideration all the things i've said above like the amout of reviews for each versions.

[cpt]

Your claim does make sense, but how do you apply the "number of reviews" theory to explain the shift from pre-2009 (multplats on 360 have higher scores) to 2009 (the opposite, though just slightly)?

It's a waste of time to argue around absolute score averages, but the "trend" of these averages does indicate that multiplat games on the PS3, on average, are improving in quality (using the 360 counterparts as references).

[theEnemy]

that's pretty much it.

Multiplats are 90-95% the same on both consoles.

[TheDeadMetalhead]

Your logic is faulty, big time.

If the only reason PS3 versions are scoring higher is because of less reviews, then please explain this to me:

Bioshock

360/96/88 reviews
PS3/94/51 reviews

Oblivion

360/94/90 reviews
PS3/93/45 reviews

Burnout Paradise

360/88/68 reviews
PS3/87/55 reviews

Overlord II

360/75/49 reviews
PS3/72/32 reviews

Seriously...

[Consoldtobots]

meh

none of this means squat until Sony drops the price.

[topdawg122]

@ darkride66, well put,
usually both versions are the same, there are pros and cons to both sides. Before ps3 had worse versions(07), but now it seems that they're pretty even and ps3 has really stepped up. Each console has its advantages and who cares about these meta averages, especially if they're so close. Show me a multiplat with a distinctive score difference and around the same number of reviews then you can talk about which multiplat game is better

[dragunrising]

I agree with n4ps3g. Xbox games typically collect a greater number of reviews total. This usually has the effect of lowering marks overall.

How is this true you ask? Regression towards the mean. No matter how good a game is, the greater the number of reviews, the more variation in review scores (hence the lower averages on 360). Statistics don't lie.

This is great news. PS3 games are achieving parity with 360 games. This means that we should see fewer Orange Box disparities in game quality. The difference in this case was pretty apparent; 96 (360) vs 89 (PS3). An aggregate of all the mutliplaform titles of 2009 isn't as good an indication of quality as its only one or 2 percent. The score doesn't decide hands down which version is better. Thats why its better to read reviews that compare multiplatform games. Lensoftruth and eurogamer have very good multiplatform comparisons. Also...metacritic updated the site...looks good :-)

[Sprudling]

"How is this true you ask? Regression towards the mean. No matter how good a game is, the greater the number of reviews, the more variation in review scores (hence the lower averages on 360)."

blindfromthesun, you're contradicting yourself. More variation can't mean both closer to the average and a lower average.

[Chimerhazzard]

It doesn't really matter. Ok, some multiplats look better on the 360, others look better on the Ps3... does it prove which console is capable of producing better graphics? I don't think so. I think it only proves that the developer spent more time with the version that looks better. Multiplats shouldn't be used for fanboyism or extensive arguments: those are the games that we can all enjoy.

[Jockamo]

It's important to take into account the reason why there are more 360 reviews. The 360 is vastly more popular in the west than the PS3. So the demand for software is going to be higher (as we have seen in the recent NDP).

Because the demand will be higher, there will be more reviews on the product that is purchased more. It's okay for that to happen, but just realize that having MORE reviews reflects the DEMAND for reviews.

No one is going to review a version of a game that won't sell as much.

And yes, more reviews WILL bring down the average, generally.

[Raoh]

metacritic can go to hell..

a few people posted the unevenness of the reviews..

and many times you can also see poor reviews from crappy sites that are not credible and at times flat out fanboyish and they add these reviews to the score..

metacritic is worthless.. the only real reason any company cares about them is because they were one of the few sites that do this type of meta data for movies and books..

you want a more fair review score tally? use gamestats.com instead

[Anon1974]

They're both sites giving averages for reviews scores. I can't see that they'd be too far off from one another.
And it's not like their sites are any different. You still see reviews from smaller sites. In fact, at the bottom of the screen in the list of reviews is a link where you can submit any review you come across. You can't tell me that's any different.

[Golfcoachh]

and sites that are only 360 then look at the average. Who is to say that ps3 magazine gives a games 95 and xbox 360 gives the game 90 without no direct comparesin. Or it could be the other way around and the xbox only sites have a game rated way higher than a ps3 site, so unless you dump out those sites you can't actually have a fair analysis of the dats.

[GarandShooter]

Attaboy Hutch. Common sense at work again, ladies and gentlemen.

Bubs.

[Golfcoachh]

that disagreed, come on like its not true.

[Raoh]

my point on gamstats (aside that i just hate metacritic) is that gamestats for the most part lists reviews from top sites like ign us, ign uk, ign aus, etc

metacritic does ign us or ign uk with a mix of mygamingsiteijustcreatedlastni ghtfrommyfreewebsitehostingoffe redbymyispprovider.com every know and then oh and if a review doesn't give a score.. hey we are metacritic, lets give a score we think the reviewer would give..

[Pandamobile]

This is a pretty stupid way of looking at things.

[Anon1974]

Then please tell me how you tell which version of games to purchase if not by review scores. Do you actually go out, rent both versions, compare and then decide?

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

How about this darkride66:

You get whichever version you want.

You get whichever one you have more friends on.

You get whichever one is more convenient for you at the time.

You get whichever one for the console you currently own.

I know I'm not gonna get a 360 version of a game because I don't currently own a 360.

[StanLee]

You know shocky16 hit the nail on the head in an earlier post and everyone passed over his comment. If you look at the reviews of multiplatform games on both consoles, the games on the XBox 360 usually have 10 sometimes 20 more reviews compared to the PS3 version, resulting in an average that's usually 1 or 2 points off. That's the only reason for the disparity and nothing else. Multiplatform games and closing the gap in the disparity between versions. Whatever differences wont be reflected in review scores but by silly sites like Lens of Truth putting each game under a microscope for fanboys to nitpick at minute differences.

[Pandamobile]

Because they're different reviewers. Not very often to you get a reputable establishment like IGN that say "Game X plays better on Console Y", etc.

[ultimolu]

Nobody reads articles these days.

They go by the titles and have temper tantrums.

Eh, back to writing my survey report.

[kaveti6616]

Ultimolu, I read it and it's pretty stupid. I don't usually agree with the MS fanboys, but they have a point. The Xbox 360 version of the game gets slammed with more reviews than the PS3 version. I remember when GTA IV was released the PS3 version had a slightly higher score on gamerankings and metacritic. But the 360 version had like 20 more reviews than the PS3 version. Most individual reviewing sites that compare both versions agree that the 360 version of
GTA IV is slightly more polished than the PS3 version.

I think that the number of reviews does affect the metacritic scores. Although, I couldn't care less because if the versions of any multiplatform game are within one or two points of each other, then they are probably both exactly the same and the differences between them are negligible.

[NS]

LMAO!! Great excuses. Keep them coming folks.

[-MD-]

"Gotta be one of the top 10 most stupid things I have seen on this site, and that's saying a lot considering the crap that you see here everyday.

Here's the logical reason why some multiplatform games have better metascore on PS3 than 360: Most reviewers review only the 360 version of the game, meaning that the more reviews you have for a game, the bigger the chance the average is going to be lower than the PS3 version, which always, ALWAYS has at least 30 reviews less than the Xbox 360 version.

I find this ironic because the 360 version of a multiplatform games always is better than the PS3 version. Oh well, flame that disagree button tards!"

That's the truth.

[Model]

Truth is i don't give a rats ass

*goes back playing ps3*

[KingKionic]

you commented..

[Anon1974]

A good game is going to have a good review score. If 20 reviewers say it's good or two reviewers say it's good, if it's a good game the average will reflect that. The idea that the more reviews you have equals a greater chance for bad reviews is flawed. It's no different than the chance of receiving positive reviews that might skew the number the other way.
And wouldn't negative reviews have a greater impact on the metacritic score with fewer reviews, because with fewer reviews the weighting would be more so a bad review would be more likely to skew the overall score? You clearly haven't thought your statement through.

[Major_Tom]

Nom nom nom, love taking your bubbles Murderdoll.

[krouse93]

@1.2 from his PlayStation 3's webbrowser

[derseb]

the number of samples does not influence the value of the average.

it only influences the accuracy of the approximation!

[Kill Crow]

As far as anyone can tell you've just made all that up. Where are the stats? Which games were compared?

A PS3 fan boy picking and choosing which games to compare and then write an article explaining the findings without any evidence???

Please ... might as well come straight of of's Ken's mouth.. !!!

[Allelujah00]

Oh the excuses... I wander what excuse you guys are going to come up with when you console drops to 3rd place.

[Kill Crow]

PS3 fan boy looks at data and writes an article that ... guess what ... finds in favour of PS3 ...

No proof of what was actually reviewed ... and as pointed out by many the way you can look at the data is completely flawed.

Darkride setup his OWN forum this is nothing but his opinion.

and as for 360 dropping to third place you haven't seen the NPD resutls .... PS3 is sunk !!!

[Anon1974]

It would be a spreadsheet then.

Get off your ass and look yourself. Metacritic scores are available to everyone.

And there's plenty of people on N4G with this own sites who post their articles. How is that any different. All sites have to start somewhere and given the state of game journalism I didn't think I could do any worse.
You act like there's something wrong with me writing as opposed to some "journalist" who does less research then I do and gets paid to spout of his uninformed opinion and usually misses the mark (I'm looking at you Destructoid)
Get over yourself. Every single game journalist out there is just a guy, no different then me.

[Microsoft Xbox 360]

The PS3 exclusives scores are better in 2009 too.

[SpoonyRedMage]

I read the article and they do allude to it but this is mostly based of just a mean average but if you take the standard deviation into account you'll see that they're pretty much identical and always have been. There's very few cases where multiplatform titles are actually different in quality.

[Anon1974]

Most of the time the difference is slight which would indicate to any thinking gamer that the reviewers don't believe the differences ultimately hurt the overall game, but there's plenty of instances where the metacritic scores vary by 10-20%.
The people above claiming all the sites post the same review for multiconsole releases obviously haven't bothered to compare some of the metacritic scores out there.

[ustayclassyn4g]

just shows how much of a negative impact on metacritic has on the games industry,it's just more and more bait for fanboys not mature enough to care about something more important than how well a piece of machinery preforms.That,and some publishers doing all they can to influence reviews to get that score for their game that bit higher...

[saimcheeda]

tables have turned!

[00]

And I thought that HHG story was stupid,there are no words to describe the stupidity of this with out it doing any justice.

[TheDeadMetalhead]

Here come the excuses.

[dustgavin]

I am sure they are going to be heading in here with sales comparisons. It is sad that 360 games are scoring lower even with the year lead they had on both the Ps3 and Wii.

The 360 is full of fail.

[KillerPwned]

I could care less what score a game gets it just matters if i like it or not.

[green]

The Crap...sorry meant to say source filter on N4G is obviously broken.

EDIT:Had 4 bubbles an hour ago, then it dropped to 1, went up to 7 as of the time i wrote this comment, then everything has disappeared.I don't know if it's the mods or if my account has been hacked.

[dktxx2]

I still think its imaginary.

[00]

do you only have one Bubble?

[dktxx2]

Multiplatform games are the same. The differences that reviews tend to point out are 9 out of 10 times negligible. The only reason people know the differences are because reviews mention them.

[TheDeadMetalhead]

HOW IS ONE POINT A BIG DIFFERENCE? In my opinion, if the 360 version and PS3 versions of the game are 3 points or less apart, then they're probably completely identical. I don't pay attention unless there's a major difference between the two (example: Orange Box 96:89). Street Fighter IV got a 94 on PS3 and a 93 on 360. Do you REALLY think there is a difference between the two? Same goes for Bioshock having a 96 on 360 and a 94 on PS3.

This is just ridiculous. =/

[Natsu X FairyTail]

true.

[iHEARTboobs]

We have to remember that the scores aren't indicative of one versions quality over the other. They're just numbers someone with a site gives to a game based on how much fun someone had with it. They're all just opinions.

[JonnyBigBoss]

PS3 is the future. It only gets better.

[Dnarbeis]

Djeezus, flamebait

[HDgamer]

Go back to gaming and stop reading the title alone.

[OmarJA]

PS3 the only place for true & AAA titles since last year until now & beyond.

[Sir Ken_Kutaragi]

...looks like i'll be using my ChatBox 360 as a Cup holder to then!!! ;-D
(I got 2 Cup holders now!!! The other 1 is the HD-DVD Add-on for my ChatBox 360!!!) ;-D

Multiplatform Games ARE BETTER ON THE PS3;) (+You Get FREE On-Line Play!!!)

DON'T BELIEVE THE INTERNET LIES PEOPLE;)

LIFE IS BETTER ON THE PS3;)

POOR RedNeckChavBots only got NPD Sales Left to keep them happy now!!! ;-D

[AngryTypingGuy]

The only lies are the ones coming out of your pancake face. Do you know what I believe? My eyes! Anyone with decent vision can clearly see that the 360 versions of most games look better. And, as pointed out above, the 360 versions get reviewed more, probably because more people play them. But with the greater number of reviews comes the possibility for the greater amount of scrutiny.

[Anon1974]

More reviews gives an equal chance for good reviews as well. Saying that more reviews means the chance for lower scores doesn't make a lick of sense.
You claim most games look better on the 360 and you can tell because you've seen them all? I call BS on that one. Here we've got reviewer after reviewing this year saying that's not the case. Do I believe professional game reviewer or some fan on some forum? Obviously I'm going to side with the reviews because it's their job to tell me their opinion on games, where some guy ranting on forums is probably just trying to perpetuate his narrow minded view of the console wars.

[AngryTypingGuy]

I never claimed to see them all, but when they have the "Lens of Truth" comparisons, most of the time, the 360 versions look slightly better. And you are right that it can work the other way for a more positive score, and sometimes it does, but critics are critics, and they look for every little negative detail.

My narrowminded view of the console wars? As opposed to who? The sea of retards on this board? I have said positive things about the PS3 plenty of times on this board even though the 360 is my console of choice. Try taking your head out of your @ss and pretending you're better than everyone else, douchebag.

[topdawg122]

Ha Ha 2 cup holders, gotta admit thats a good one

[Anon1974]

And of them, only half the time the 360 has come out in front. And even then, some of their decisions have certainly been questionable. Take their recent comparison of Blueblaze.
Everything about the game is the same, graphics, loading, everything...except for they can't control the player on the 360. They complain - "when we wanted to move left we more often jumped or ended up crouching".
End result - they say it's a tie. I say, "WTF?" How can you say everything's the same except one game suffers control issues and say that results in a tie?
It just goes to show that even with comparisons like Lens of Truth provides, it's all still subject to their own personal interpretation. For me, faulty controls in a fighting game would be a deal breaker, but LoT doesn't think so. That's why an average score of multiple reviews is a better test of reviewers overall opinions of the games they review. It weeds out the extreme viewpoints to an extent and gives us a better idea of what's really going on, and clearly the consensus is the PS3 had a rough first year, better second year and the third year so far has been better still.
I don't know why this notion is so threatening an idea to some.

[Javier19]

Lmao oh come on guys this is such a crap.

The people who review the PS3 games just happen to give higher scores than the people who review the 360 games, its all down to OPINION not actual performance.

I learnt a long time ago the hard way to buy my Multi-Plat games on the 360 not the PS3.

Why?

- No FORCED install taking up my time, patience and HDD space.
- Better online modes thanks to superior Xbox Live
- Almost always better graphics on the 360 over PS3, only slightly but theres still a difference without a doubt.
- (just in my experience) Faster loading, less screen tears etc.
- In many cases Exclusive DLC, Fallout 3, GTA IV etc.

[Major_Tom]

Better online modes lolwtf?

Fanboys are so delusional.

[Anon1974]

What? You don't think reviewers take those factors into consideration when reviewing games? They do, they comment on it all the time and at the end of the day they've come out on the PS3's side. Even last year, half the games rated better on the 360, half the games where better on the PS3 or tied their 360 counterparts. Only a delusional fool would dismiss such a clear consensus.

PS3 multiplats suffered in 2007. It's not 2007 anymore. Things have changed. Why is this such a threat to some gamers? The only constant in this industry is change.

[topdawg122]

I don't think you have a PS3 loser you constantly talk crap about it

[dustgavin]

Yet another ignorant 360 owner trying to justify playing to pay and defending an outdated system.

[spunkee311]

I do get Multi-plat games on the xbox 360. My opinion they always run better and don't have to do a Mandatory Data Install. Take a look at Resident Evil 5 and Grand Theft Auto 4. Mandatory installs when the Xbox 360 versions run better with none of that. Now granted, I think multi-plat games like the ones I just mentioned along with Assassins Creed and Bioshock look better on the PS3.
PS3 is just beginning to shine and look at all the exclusives coming out. I'm perfectly fine playing the PS3 just for exclusives. They are amazing.

[Tinted Eyes]

one of the top 360 arguments, gone.....

[Guitarded]

I'll just go ahead and add you to the list of sack slurpers that I started at #6. Dumba$$.

EDIT: I'm laughing my a$$ off. Not mad. You on the other hand are so pissed off that multiplats are crap on the PS3 that you choose to believe any piece of garbage that might give you some glimmer of hope that the money you spent on the garbage that is the PS3, was somehow not a waste. Here is a clue: It was a waste. Hilarious!

[Tinted Eyes]

"BUT 90 PERCENT OF MULTIPLATFORM GAMES ARE BETTER!!!" - not anymore

i'd be mad too

[Arnon]

Maybe you should take a game that is on both platforms, count the number of exclusive reviewers/unbiased reviewers there are for each one, and then come back here. If the numbers are uneven, then it's almost like comparing a what if to a what if.

Oh right, this is the open zone. There's no such thing as logic.

Prototype:
PS3 - 80/100. Based off of 48 reviews.
360 - 78/100. Based off of 78 reviews.

Ghostbusters:
PS3 - 78/100. Based off of 71 reviews.
360 - 80/100. Based off of 40 reviews.

Battlefield 1943:
PS3 - 84/100. Based off of 16 reviews.
360 - 83/100. Based off of 35 reviews.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? And yes, Guitarded, he's extremely desperate for some positive info.

[Anon1974]

With fewer reviews, it's harder for PS3 games to achieve higher scores because negative reviews impact them more. Way to point that out, Arnon.

[dustgavin]

Arnon just got owned hard.

[Arnon]

Lol my post is not directed towards the PS3. It's directed towards any console and metacritic in general. The ONLY way to actually have a fair competition between 1 game on both platforms would be to remove all of the exclusive reviewers, and have the exact same amount of reviews.

It's like comparing a "what if" to a "what if".

[commodore64]

Yeah, I think Arnon has nailed it there.

Darkride has neglected to make a proper comparison.
Once again, he has succumbed to his own spin and unscientific bias.

Fact is, it is not possible to compare the scores of the multiplats on metacritic because:

1. The games on metacritic are reviewed by different publishers
2. The number of reviewers are different.
3. The Reviews invariably do NOT compare the games 1:1

Thus, the results are skewed.

Proof of this is in the score of 91 for KZ2.
Most PS3 gamers would agree that the game should have score a little higher.

To compound my point, Halo3 scored 94!
Does this mean Halo3 is better than KZ2?

According to Darkride's logic, that's exactly what is the truth, according to metacritic.
... Yeah, this is where darkride's opinion falls down once again.

What is most disappointing about all this, is that this fallacious argument was authored by Darkride, posted on his own website and then submitted to n4g by none other than ... you guessed it... darkride.

Wow.
This guy is sure desperate to get his poorly constructed PS3 fanboy spin heard!

[zok310]

How would you like to try our new Crow-Flakes, now eat up bots, wont want to miss out on the RROD ice cream dessert.

[Flewid638]

PS3 games being inferior to 360 games is SOOOOOOOO 2007. Virtually EVERY multi-plat is, today, identical.

Now........if you want to be an "i dont have a life" fanboy and post 200 page articles about how one console version of a game has ONE OR TWO EXTRA PIXELS vs A GROUP OF SHADERS THAT CANT BE SEEN WITHOUT A MICROSCOPE........then hey.....more power to you.

But as it stands, most human beings will walk by a multi-plat running on both systems and they look the same. Jeez.

This is why corny-ass shows like the Spike Video Game awards are allowed. Stupid programs which BASTARDIZE gaming because all they think is that it's filled with pimple-faced, overweight, nerds who debate over nothing.

[ps12&3lover]

its funny when theres something positive for ps3 its gotta be crap..stop hating cuz the fact is the ps3 is getting better every year and the more developers get to know the hardware the better the games will be..360 is becoming last gen and fast

[MetalGearBear]

thank!!!! Metacritic!!!!
RRODBOX is fail!!!!!

[Dellis]

Fact- this article is about to get 1080 degrees

the 360 fanboys are coming LOL

[kewlkat007]

on the amount of reviews Vs the other...just like the gaming l ibraries differ in sizes.

[Qui-Gon Jim]

More reviews just brings the average score closer to the "true" value (which in this case is an unknown). That means that the "more reviews factored in" argument would work both ways, and so cancel out. This article shows that PS3 no longer lags behind in quality of multi-plats, like some people believe. I don't think anyone should take it that PS3 versions are actually significantly better either though.

[Golfcoachh]

You can't compare scores unless the site that did the review did one for both games. You cant compare what ps3gamer gave to what 360gamer gave it. They only reviewed the game for the console they represent. If you want an exact average you only count the sites that reviewed both consoles game. Period, to argue would be ignorant.

[DelbertGrady]

I thought they would look at comparisons made between multiplat games on each console.

Compare the number of reviews of the 360 versions versus the number of reviews of the PS3 versions and you'll see the 360 versions have more reviews, which makes the statistics skewed and worthless. You don't need the cell to figure that out. Well, some of you do but. ;)

[Once Upon a Fable]

Am I the only one who just saw Eurogamer comparison #20? Dominated by Xbox 360. Look at the 19 before it. lol if you are on PS3, u are getting the worse versions of games.

[Jack-Pyro]

If you honestly believe that than you need a lobotomy, and FAST!!!

Multiplat games are good on both system, with the PS3 and the 360 taking certain crowns in different games!

Timeshift was better on 360

Blazblue was better on PS3

Both consoles have their Gems in their multiplat crowns!

[Anon1974]

More reviews don't skew the final score. If a game has 100 reviewers that like a review or 2 that like, the end result is going to be that the score shows the game is liked.
If anything, fewer reviews would skew the numbers as any negative reviews would have a greater impact on the final score.
And what are reviews if not comparisons between the versions. Sites like Gamespot, IGN, etc will routinely score versions lower than other versions if they think one version suffers for some reason. Happens all the time, which is why we see the fluctations in Metacritic scores.
There are few sites that make it their business to do head to head comparisons, but even they are only voicing their opinion. Lens of Truth is a perfect example. Look at their comparison of BlueBlaze. Everything's the same except they complain that on the 360 they couldn't control the character properly. They give it a tie. Now, to me a fighting game with poor controls is a deal breaker but not in LoT's opinion.
It just goes to illustrate why multiple review scores are a better comparison then some one off opinion on one or two sites alone.
At the end of the day, your history as a Sony basher really excludes your comments on the situation because I know that anything you say will be anti-Sony - but real gamers need to see the light. The myth that all PS3 games are inferior needs to go back to 2007 where it belongs. There's more than enough evidence out there to prove it's no longer true.

Edit: @ Once Upon a Fable. In Eurogamer's opinion, and Eurogamer is known to be notoriously pro Microsoft. That's just one sites opinion. With metacritic, I offer up hundreds of sites opinions in one place for comparison - and you start stammering "Bu-bu-bu Eurogamer said!" That's one site versus hundreds.

[AndyA]

"Riff?" Lol.

Pointlessly contentious article in horrible writing shocker.

[Qui-Gon Jim]

After all, everyone knows it's SALES that are the true determiner of quality, right?
/sarcasm

In all seriousness, this article proves that it is no longer true that PS3 versions are inferior. Now all multi-plats are virtually the same on both systems. You can find differences, but for every PS3 version with blurry textures there is a 360 version with pop-in. I once saw on Metacritic (though i haven't been able to find it again since) that any metascore differences less than five points don't mean anything.

One interesting thing with the comments here: seeing the sides switch compared to the whole "Gears of War 2 vs. Killzone 2 reviews" thing a few months ago. Suddenly the side that was playing up a one or two point difference then are now saying it doesn't matter, and vice versa (generalizations, not meant for any specific persons).

[JonahFalcon]

That's pretty meaningless. It's sort of damning, actually, since it could mean that PS3 reviewers are so anxious for any sort of AAA titles they award higher reviews simply because they stand out so much more than the usual junk.

[cayal]

lol. Bu-bu-bu Jonah like xbox. psfree sucks. jonah wants his bottle. mummmmmmmmy!!!

What a hack you are.

[leeger]

this is ridiculous! why? you don't expect xbox magazine and playstation magazine will have the same score for all multiplats out there, they should factr that fact first before arriving at such conclusion.

[DanteLinkX]

at the amount of posts being deleted by the mods,I love these articles, it helps to lower the bubble counts of so many fanboys.

[a_cold_soul]

Sure they are :/

[Power_Of_Flops_]

No surprise here.

Another fact is this year PS3 had 2 exclusive full AAA games (90 or more on metacritic), Killzone 2 (92) and MLB 09 (90), 360 had zero...

Facts...

[PotNoodle]

I like that multiplatform games have improved on the PS3 because i have always bought them on PS3 over 360 (just a preference), no one can deny, even the hardcore PS3 fans that the PS3 did get the bad end of the stick for a long while when it came to multiplatform games.

There will always be better versions of games while there are multiple platforms, while the PS3 still does get its odd bad port here and there still, it has improved alot where now it is near enough even with the xbox 360.

But does it really matter though? Even the so called *bad ports* have all looked and played brilliantly, just were a bit different than the "superior" versions. These are differences that you would never notice unless you compare screenshots and sit there focusing on them.

[dcbronco]

Using his own story as proof of something is as low as it gets. Metacritics is nothing to base anything on. It's like using Wiki as a reference without any backup. My Grandmother could have an influence on their scores. At least go back to submitting other peoples worthless stories.

[EVILDEAD360]

Even the the most diehard PS3 and 360 fans realize that the majority of the sites today won't review a game on both platforms. Plus there is no denying that Meta is completely tainted at this point. The F-boy wars have made there way to the actual reviewers a loooong time ago.

But, either way the 360 fans know the truth. The games have been on par or better for most of this generation. This assured quality has transferred into title success. The big name multi-platform games like Call of Duty do incredible numbers on the 360. This year we saw Resident Evil and just recently Prototype do chart topping opening months on the Xbox alone.

With an almost perfect track record, it is clear that the stigma of subpar multi-plats will never stick on the 360 and that's just the reality of the day.

[Qui-Gon Jim]

I think what we should take away from this article is just that it's no longer true that PS3 has inferior versions. In the past the PS3 did get some bad ports, though how bad they were was really overstated, but now multi-plats are mostly the same with there being little differences here and there that prefer each version.

[ian72]

I buy all my games for PS3,and some PC which I cannot get on PS3. This is due to not having XBOX. Multiplats are near enough the same on either system and it doesn't make you enjoy the game more or less whichever you play the game on. Only minor differences, nothing to moan about.

[CryWolf]

If you want a game to be better and to look better it half to be a PS3 exclusive.

[Gun_Senshi]

Metacritic and reviews still suck.

Last Gen I loved a game called "Godhand" which is rated 5ish

This gen I found GTA IV horrible and 6.5/10 max but its rated 10/10 everywhere

[ZOMBIEMAN1]

360 owners are in raged that the PS3 version of multiplatforms games being better than 360 version , here with us in studio is a representative of the 360 community his name will not be revealed for safety purpose incase PS3 owners are in raged with him take it away random 360 owner which will not be named ......... Why Dis .

random 360 owner: PS3 SUX , IT's a FLOPSTATION THIS IS BULLSH!T 360 IS BETTER TEH SALES SAYS SO SO IT'S BULLSH!T LOOK AT GHOSTBUSTERS IT'S SUX ON FLOPSTATION 3 360 IS BETTER XBL IS BETTER KZ2 IS FAIL PROTOTYPE BILLION TIMES BETTER THAN inFAMOUS HALO 3 ODST WILL RAPE EVERYTHING 360 IS TRUE NEXT GEN AND FLOPSTATION DILDO SUX NATAL INFINTY TIMES BETTER 360 is BETTER.

ZOMBIEMAN: Zzzzzzzz Zzzzzzz wha wha what oh your done ok and in other news this is what nintendo had to say.
nintendo : It prints MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$.
ZOMBIEMAN: more at 11:00
( i'm only kidding no disrespect to Why Dis but please don't reply in a fanboy matter )

[KingKionic]

Not a very smart article.

[Anon1974]

Metacritic is used extensively in the industry. It's used when companies negotiate royalty contracts. Microsoft uses it when deciding which XBL games to take off the system. It even influences stock prices ahead of sales data. It's simply an average review score and it's showing us what any thinking gamers knows. 2006-2007, PS3 multiplats where rushed and suffered because of it. 2008 things got better to the point where half of all multiplats scored better on the 360, the other half either scored better on the PS3 or tied their 360 counterparts.
Now in 2009 that trend has continued, and who is telling us this...the reviewers themselves. Not fanboy forums, not one off LensofTruth sites (did you check out their comparison of that new fighter? Identical across the board except they couldn't control the 360 version because of the d-pad. They gave it a tie. Ludicrous.) Game reviewers have been telling us for the last year that multiplat games are almost always identical, with the differences so small it doesn't matter to the end result, and still 360 fanboys have screamed at the top of their lungs that "All PS3 multiplats are gimped," and "360 multiplats are always better."
Where's the evidence to support that? Because the bulk of reviewers say that's bunk. Who are you going to believe, the majority of game reviewers or one or two sites that offer their opinion on the matter?

If you stop ignoring what the critics have to say about that matter, well then you're just making up your own opinion, aren't you now?

[Shendow]

If you want to know which one is better or looks better, own both systems then rent the same game for both of them. But that is a waste of money to see which is better but you would know for yourself if PS3 game look better then 360's.

[lizard81288]

i wish they would have given examples of which games got higher scores on the ps3 vs 360, also are these user reviews or site/pro reviews? if there user reviews then i suppose fanboys could buff up the score to either side. also there could be an invasion of sorts like what 2chan did to the new dragon quest game on amazon, rating it very low.

[Shendow]

Yeah right, so far Sony has give their games ratings that fit the game, almost all 360 titles on going to get good ratings because its a USA system an LIPS was said to be a AAA title -_- it didn't do well an their little movie game blow. Its sites an MS site that give their games more higher rating and even if its on both systems.

[ULTIMATE_REVENGE]

Some idiot on top said that paying $600 for a PS3 is stupid because the multiplats look worse on the PS3 lol.

I purchased a PS3 for the sake of playing PS3 GAMES DUMBASS!!.

Look at all the EXCLUSIVE PS3 games they completely destroy every single game on the market and that justifies my purchase you bunch of idiots.

[danthaman15]

I agree, but don't act like PS3 is better than everything else and anyone who bought a different console is an idiot. They all have their gems.

[mochi]

Sony official PlayStation magazines and PSfansites give unfairly higher score to ps3 version.

[pippoppow]

PS3 games are reviewed harsher especially by the American Media.

[SlyGuy]

'deleted by mod' in a while. lol.

[pippoppow]

there goes one of the 360 fanboys ammo. Fanboys only like the ones hovering around negative PS3 news and positive 360 news even if blatantly false info is delivered. Games are close with some looking slightly better either way. Also if the very best visuals is truly important then why not get the PC version. Also don't believe those side by side comparison because many sites don't adjust the PS3 setting to it's optimum setting. Anyone with a PS3 knows the games look much better than whats shown. Too bad fanboyism has seeped it's way into gaming journalism giving false or skewed views.