does anyone know who puts the reviews on meta? is it the reviewer themselves or does meta sort all that out? for instance look at the edge review, they reviewed the 360 version (they said they looked at the ps3 version or something) yet it was posted only on the ps3 side?? so did edge put it on the ps3 side or did meta? anyway its pretty clear from meta that 360 is the superior version, just like ME2 360 version is superior to the PC version! (according to meta) really it is a farce... i thin...
well there you have it then! any game put through a 23" screen will not show a difference! and you dont even know what setting they were using! try playing the game on the 360 through your 50" and tell me you cant see any difference or jaggies! lmao... come on your not telling people its ok, your liyng to em! or atleast not telling the whole truth! and so if you dont like 1 game of a series you count all other games of that series out? lmao way to go! did you eventtry the god of war...
its lovely to know what tv you have lmao.... now could you tell me what tv you saw the game being played on? what size screen was it? was it 1080p? was the ps3 set-up on 1080p? i mean you dont really give much information for people to respect your comparison... i mean there have been lots of comparisons that say there is a difference, a big diference, especailly during cut-scenes... but people are supposed to believe a random on N4G?.... oh and erm excuse me but did you say the only game you...
no no no your not allowed to say the media is bias! lmao oh and your wrong also! according to metacritic the 360 version is better! 84 for 360, 82 for PS3.... also ME2 360 96, ME2 PC 94, the pc meta has 52 reviews with 8 scores of less than 90... the 360 version has 96 scores with 1 less than 90! oh but nooooo there is no bias! the media do not love MS (or their money!) lol.
lol i take it you saw it on an sd-tv then? else why would you mention that? lmao... sorry but this is meant to be played on a hd-tv, hense why the ps3 cut-scenes are 1080p... i know money can be tight and all that, but seriously i wouldnt have even bothered getting a next gen console if i didnt have a hd-tv, i would have saved up for that first! lol, the difference is night and day! like dvd vs blu-ray, there just isnt any competition.
the ps3 had a slightly worse framerate, i guess he was getting his versions mixed up! lmao.
i know exactly what you mean mate, i felt that too, it really does hurt your eyes, maybe its cos your trying to get focus but you cant because its blury.... i was just reading another thread, of a vid comparison where 360 fans were jumping up and down saying it was all for nothing and there was no difference! oh please! there are shadows missing! blurry images, slight framerate drop (jokes on you told me the other day the ps3 had a slightly worse framerate, hmmmm lol), longer load times... im...
next gen they should go for cassette tape! just like the spectrum! amagine how much money they could save!
but not THAT exspensive, give it a year and you will pick one up for half that price!
.... the best on ps3 then sure all other ps3 games that comeout, that dont match or surpass that 360 game, should be marked down for graphics... this is the only way i see it as fair... i mean if you dont mark down MW2 for graphics, then why mark down GOW3? it just doesnt make sense to me, anyway its not all about graphics, i only used that 1 example, but look at the example i used about ME2, dont you think it strange the PC version scored lower? and had 8 reveiws below 90 from 52 reviews, ye...
not every pc gamer gets the same graphics with crysis do they? i would say U2, MGS4, GOW3, K2, HR... COMPETE very well against anything on the PC in terms of graphics using a mid range PC and lets face it this is what MOST people have... so to answer your question i feel GRAPHICALLY PC and CONSOLES should be seperated from the equation... everyone with a ps3 will have those amazing gow3 graphics, you see? so YES i do believe 360, and wii should be marked down for graphics, well hell even the ...
i however am not saying what score it deserves, be it 10 9 8 or whatever... what im saying is there should be consistency and equality in reviews for the same site, and the reasons for marking a game down should be valid ones... this is not the case tho... please tell me how you think MW2 has better graphics then GOW3, but this is technically what ign is saying! read some of the comparisons people have made, you must admit some are rediculous! now sure different reviewers may have reviewed bo...
look at the metas for each too... 360 version has 1 review below 90, thats out of 96 reviews ok, then look at the pc meta, 8 reviews below 90! out of only 52 reviews... doesnt this add weight to the argument that the media is bias in favour of the 360? and that they inflate the 360 scores? also if pc carried on getting more reviews, are you saying the total would surpass the 360 version? even though out of 52 reviews 8 marked it below 90? you see the score would keep going down! not up!
im sorry i fail to see hoe that statement backs up your argument? you see normally the more reviews there are the lower the score gets! lol, and anyway 52 reviews is still plenty to get an average... also you still didnt answer the question that meta is flawed! or are you saying that the 360 version is superior to the pc version? meta says it is! regardless of how many reviews its got! meta says 360 96, PC 94!!! so meta is flawed no? anyway dude why are you in this thread? i ALWAYS see you in...
ME2 360 meta 96... ME2 PC meta 94! so then is the 360 version superior to the pc version? lol really honestly cant the doubters atleast see that meta is flawed? now about what hhg is saying, i couldnt agree more! the reasons are complete BS and its obvious they had TO look HARD for them, but why? why do others games get a free pass while others sail by no questions ask? and its for some reason always ps3 games that get scrutinised! is it because sony promised so much with the ps3? is it cos ...
lol, gotta go kickboxing now im gonna miss the sh!tstorm thats about to erupt!
that note i actually answered something you said in one of my posts to gaffyh... you were saying bayonetta got points deducted because of performance issues, as i said in my reply to gaffyh i agree with that, it being an action game it was right points were knocked off, but this game not being action, if one version did have poor framerate i wouldnt say points should be deducted because its not action! it is however heavy on cgi which is what depicts the story so therefore if one versions cgi...
etc etc) ps2 vs xbox (i was xbox, better hardware, built like a tank, built in hdd, music in-game, better graphics etc etc) now xbox 360 vs ps3 hmmm i bought a 360 day 1 pretty much (ps3 wasnt out then so no competition) it was ok, i mean better than anything else out there. i was forced to sell it through circumstances (debt lol), anyway time came around i sorted myself and i was in the market for a console again, this time ps3 was out.. after looking into things i decided to go with the ps3...
you talk about a couple of threads on amazon? really? wow wee! i remember when bayonetta was about to be released, there would be 10-20 stories everyday about how bad the ps3 port was lol, i read countless articles and posts implying or even down right saying, its cos of the ps3 hardware, and come on after seeing u2, k2 etc we all know what the ps3 can do... anyway you make out like a few reviews marked it down but the truth is loads did! they all had something to say about it! not so here it...
however, could you explain this to me... on meta ME2 has 96 for 360, out of 96 reviews only 1 rated it below 90... yet the superior PC version has a meta of 94, from 52 reviews and it has 8 reviews under 90... what is going on there? the only explanations i can think of is either reviewers inflate the 360 scores out of bias or they just have lower standards... can you think of any other possible reasons? PS3 games always gets put through the mill and nitpicked! so for me the fact that U2 got ...