CVG: The Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII currently has a slightly higher average review score on Metacritic than the PS3 game.
Only in today's excessively ass-backwards gaming world, where DVD is considered a relevant gaming medium amongst a plethora of HD options, would a massively, technically inferior 360 version of a multiplatform game score higher than its PS3 counterpart. I want to know how nearly every technical comparison of this game has been found to show the PS3 version unanimously proclaimed as the version to buy -- and the technically superior version at that -- yet it scores LOWER? *scratches head* edit @ below: What makes GameRankings and MetaCritic so different?
GameRankings: 83.74% (PS3) 81.30% (360) All low score reviews are posted under the PS3 version only in metacritic.
Metacritic is f*cked up... How come there is no EDGE review for the 360 version? Is EDGE only a PS3 reviewing mag (Which would be really ironic since they always rape PS3 games with stupid scores)? Not only have the reviewers not taken into consideration the flaws of the 360 version, but even meta hasn't updated so many reviews... I mean PS3 has like nearly 40 reviews and 360 has 20? when was the last multiplat game that showed so many reviews missing on 1 side? And people say PS3 fbs whine about bias journalism, do you want more proof!!!??
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 think the best thing to do is just ignore all these places in the future, at the end of the day we know the truth right? so lets just say f**k em and carry on... we got so much to look forward to this year, its gonna be a great one! (cant wait for GT5).
Xbox only mags and Xbox only sites are easily impressed. They haven't seen many AAA games yet, so when it comes along, which is rare, they score higher. PS3 mags and PS3 only sites will mark lower because it is what they have come to expect from a AAA game that is released periodically now on the Sony console. The multiplat mags and multiplat sites, review on a Standard Def TV, meaning that both version look essentially the same. So it is no wonder they give the same score.
welcome to biased journalism. even a chameleon will be ashamed of today's gaming journalists! FFXIII: Metacritic 360: 83 (21 reviews) PS3: 82 (43 reviews) Bayonetta: Metacritic 360: 90 (85 reviews) PS3: 86 (53 reviews) long live gaming journalism!!!
and for all the persons that disagree with that...here is my Message for ya http://www.youtube.com/watc...
that's why I always said that you people should not care much about metacritic.I only use it to read what others reviewers said about a certain game.people should not take metacritic this serious and final fantasy 13 is an example.in ff13 case,the ps3 has 43 reviews and the xbox360 has 21 reviews.the ps3 has its own ps3 only sites and the xbox360 has its own xbox360 only sites so obviously the scores will be different.people should only read reviews from other sites like ign,gamespot,1up etc... and they will notice that all of them said that if you have the chance then buy the ps3 version.it's your fault if you only use metacritic as a factor to determine which version to buy.besides,I have a feeling that many people who can reach metacritic can reach ign,gamespot,1up,etc... as well ;)
racism against non american company who is competing with an american company!!! maybe because MS is also helping the FBI and CIA to their law breaking acts? and we know that the most powerful media is the western/american specifically!! so they would promote anything which is american against a non american!! and who ever deny that is a fool!! why u think 360 strong foothold is in USA? and also this is the only sound reason i can think of why media are like this!! any way, we can always assume media favors 360 PERIOD!! with that in mind we can see the reviews in a better way for ps3!! when they say a ps3 game is 9/10 then we can assume they mean 10/10 or 9.5/10 etc!! to prove my point just check these sites where they are from or who supports them or who owns them!!
We know it and 360 fanboys know it. To me that's all that matters. It's pointless now to moan about this so-called conspiracy that 360 fans quickly like to point it out as. It's a never ending fuss. I have stopped commenting daily now since PS3 has fully engraved its place in the market. Therefore, none of the "conspiracy" jargon can stop it. simplez Just proves that with a little bit of common sense, who the nervous ones really are.
This has been going on since the release of the PS3. Meta and those that are allowed to write articles submitted into meta are all bias to a degree. Some worse than others and it is a known fact that if games like this are multiplatform, the Xbox only sites will be giving the games higher scores for the title than the PS only sites. PS only sites have come to appreciate better games and if a game does not meet the benchmarks of say, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 or even the upcoming GOWIII, they will score lower. But since the Xbox boys have lesser games to compare to they typically score these kinds of games a couple points higher because their expectations are lower. it's just a simple fact of life.
I was wondering when someone was going to report on this. For some reason I though that gaming sites are not that stupid. The reason why the 360 meta is a higher average is because they contain reviews from different sites.
Heres how you gotta look at it. When compared to the PS3 line up how does FF13 stack up. Now compare it to the 360 line up... When compared to the 360 line up it's not bad but when compare the the PS3 line up it's pretty poor... So it scores higher on the 360 even though it's the inferior version... Make sense?
It's actually, FFXIII: Metacritic 360: 83 (43 reviews) PS3: 82 (21 reviews) Look again.
This site posts reviews that they like, hide the ones that they don't.
Soda-we all know which version is the better one and the sad fact is that sites like Edge and Teletext have skewed the look of the metacritic by reviewing ONLLY the PS3 version and doing so with very low scores. You would HAVE to ask the individual sites why they did this(it's not normal practise I assume)on this occasion but it isn't about conspiracies or fanboys but about a sad effect which leaves Metacritic making the weaker version out to be the stronger and misleading gamers-that's the issue and whether it's caused by editors being sly or not there should be something done about it. Certainly, this is the opposite of what happened with Bayonetta and the fact it's telling lies to people who might be checking out which one to get is unforgivable in my eyes as that's what Meta is really useful for when used correctly. It looks really dodgy whether it is or not.
EDIT: @SODA!!! SORRY I WAS RIGHT!!! 360: 83 (21 reviews) PS3: 82 (43 reviews) YOU GOT IT ALL MIXED UP.
t's actually, FFXIII: Metacritic 360: 83 (21 reviews) PS3: 82 (43 reviews) Look again.
With each important release the video game journalism industry decays more and more; biased reviews, sellout companies, famboyism denial and corrupt editors exchanging integrity for a few bucks. For better or worse, as a billion dollar market this industry is prone to corruption and manipulation just like any other. Information is a very powerful tool and we as gamers are a very naive community; anyone doubts that when millions of dollars are invested there won't be x amount of bribes going around to secure success? It is all business, be it honest or not, we are stuck within...
you are wrong you should look again here PS3 : http://www.metacritic.com/g... 360 : http://www.metacritic.com/g...
even soda the big 360 fanboy knows there is bias in the media lmao... i noticed the review ammounts were a little outdated too but it was rather pathetic to pull him up on it seen as it didnt effect the meta score, if it did effect the score id say fair play... EDIT: ha ha ha i didnt even notice he had them round the wrong way pmsl, thats hilarious! telling people to "look again" but getting it wrong yourself lol. wow soda concentrate next time your calling someone out lol.
even I'm not stupid enough to say the 360 version is better than the ps3 version however I've seen the 360 version. I don't get what the fuss is about. Final Fantasy fans won't care which platform they play it on. The only people who do care are living in the past still thinking that the ps3 is the Best TecH EvAR!!11!!1 seriously the differences are minor. 576p and 720p both look like crap to me. lol
Of course it scores higher on the Xbox 360. All multiplatform games are better on the 360. Not being a fanboy, just stating a fact. Read any review of any multiplatform game. Especially Bayonetta.
How does that foot taste bud?
Look what they're doing to Toyota! Obviously the "Buy America Act" has more provisions than we originally thought. A concentrated propaganda campaign to hurt all non-American products happens to be one of them! Nice edit Soda. Should have just deleted it and wrote my bad.
Because it had THREE times the amount of discs! More = better :P
They took our jobs They took er jerbs Derka derka doo.. Quit being a drama queen and enjoy the [email protected] game already.
Metacritic has numerous lower-than-the-average scores only posted under the PS3 version, and if you look at the individual scores, only 2 sites scored the two games differently, and both gave the PS3 version the higher score: 3DJuegos: Ps3 = 85, 360 = 84 IGN UK: PS3 = 83, 360 = 80
He is using statistics to futher an agenda or just cause a fanboy storm. Look at the amount of reviews for both. They are not the same so therefore there is no scientific backing to these claims
this game is joke
The very same fact the inferior version outscore the superior shows the system (metacritic) is fundamentally flawed and shouldnt be trusted. Meta is not only one to be blamed though. It's clear many reviewers with agenda has been hiding the dirty stuff. What I find a little funny is that if you wacth gametrailer comparison they manage to make both versions to look identical, now 1024x576 is the new 720p.
It worked for Halo 3 (the resolution); apparently, it works for FFXIII as well. /facepalm But, let's keep moving forward into the HD gener... oh wait, my bad. We're not supposed to enjoy HD content this generation, until MS declares it viable as a Digital Distribution format. Who needs Blu-Ray again?
"Oh boy, it looks like Soda got learned! How does that foot taste bud?" like foot soda? lol!
the gaming media showed their true colors this past week. Now no one can deny how skewed they are.
Its a very simple explanation. The reviews for the 360 version are very slow coming out since people got them way after PS3 version. This is why there is almost double the PS3 reviews in meta instead of the same. Give it a few weeks and let all the reviews come in. It will even out and I can almost promise you the PS3 avg score will be higher. Looking over some other comments. It seems people are under the impression that there are some biased sites that only reviewed the PS3 version and gave it low scores just to skew data on sites like meta critic? ......REALLY? I mean....come on. Is the president really a socialist spy from another country sent to kill the US economy too? Guys, this is a well known fact and has been stated by major sites like IGN. The review copies for the PS3 version came in long before the review copies for the 360 version. There will be a delay between most sites PS3 review and their 360 review because of this.It is no conspiracy against SONY.
@above That might be true but what's the point then. FFXIII was released already. People using meta score to make their minds could have been deceived to think FFXIII xbox is the better option.
This an ACE Now, every time an xboy-fanboy come in here to talk about "da bettar multiplatz version" I'll show HOW BIAS The "Gaming Media" can BE, from now on better those site start to do the Same Crap they are doing with this Game for x360 and that's creating a BIG WALL of LIES and Pretend that BOTH Versions Are EQUAL [WTF!] Wanna know what's Worst Thing, some fanboys are Happy with this [Double-WTF!] Some xbox-dude was discusing with me about this crap and at the end he said something like, "haha, media favour [US]" so even if the difference are So Big the guy is glad cuz reviewers are COVERING this crap with Gigantic LIES [Triple-WTF!], Just Unbelievable...
Wow. Just wow. People will come up with the most outrageous justifications for even the smallest of margins. It doesn't matter either way. Recognize it's not the media that's biased, it's you. Either way, I'm disappointed with the game. Horribly linear. Run forward, get in fight, mash auto-battle, run forward, get in fight, mash auto-battle, heal. No way I'm wading through this junk for 15 hours before it gets to real gameplay. It's a bit cliche to call it an "interactive movie", but that's what it is so far. The graphics or how many disks it's on couldn't be more irrelevant when gameplay so thoroughly takes a backseat to story telling. I'm trading this in, post-haste.
This is ridiculous and I expected better from CVG. I'm not even going to bother to explain why it's stupid. I can already see the fanboys have their dunce caps on.
There really is no justice. This is infuriating. INFURIATING
For all the reviews to come in for both consoles but that truly is screwed up. I look particularly at Gamespot that awarded both games an 8.5, and I don't even think they pointed out the differences.
They may have gotten the 360 version late or not, I don't really know; but why would they hold-up the PS3 version one whole year just to not deliver the 360 version at the same time? I'm curious if anyone can answer that.
Its obvious why its getting a higher rating, Xbox sites and magazines are rating it higher than the Playstation magazines and sites.
This is because the 360 fan sites are either giving it a golden score or none at all. Its all about who reviews the game. the big multi reviewers are avoiding the 360 version to not get caught up in the whole thing and thats massively swaying the scores.
And people still think metacritic can't be FIXED. :) 360 is the coward of the gaming industry. :)
You are so right, I also read about that. Also there has always been a conspiracy between the martians and the napkins making union to ensure the xbox 360 products get rated higher than PS3 products regardless to which one is better. Doing this keeps the stars aligned and aids in keeping Mars red hot due to stardust falling to it's surface because of the aforesaid aligned stars. The fact the most of that PS3 fanboys just whiny sore losers that are in complete denial has nothing to do with it. The is definitely and conspiracy with Microsoft, the Martians, and the Napkins making union trying to rule the world as a dominate TRAID! Yeah, that's it. It' only a matter of time before this story gets pulled because of the whining and reporting. Edit: One more thing, having more reviews actually prevent lower scores from hurting as much. Having fewer reviews make lower scores have a bigger impact. It's simple math.
You guys always loved to pretend its a tin-foil hat conspiracy. But uhm, you look kinda silly at this point when the PS3 version of this game is meta'd lower, has Lower scores that aren't making it over to the 360 version, and as always.. is a point or two higher than the Ps3 version. Please, I'd love to see you respond in a mature way, instead of pretending its the ps3 fans & their conspiracy theory again. This is a fact right now. The media didn't review the 360 version separately(metacritic sites), no points were deducted for visual flaws(as ps3 versions are always deducted). I'd love to see you man up on this one. Its clear right now that the PS3 version shouldn't be scoring lower. But, it is. If the PS3Tards always claim this is what happens, and like clockwork.. it happens, how is this just bitzhin`?
then why are you here? obviously console gaming is beneath you in every way, so why own any (you claim you do) and why post here?
I've been pointing this out since the game released. Even though every review mentions the PS3 version is better...NO ONE dares give the 360 one a lower score. No site is doing it. Yet you look at Bayonetta and every single placed that reviewed it gave 2 different reviews of the game with different scores on the 2 platforms. There is a BIG difference between FF13 on PS3 and 360. One isn't running HD for god sakes. That ALONE should be a .5 to a 1.0 mark off from the PS3 version that DOES have HD. This was the defining game for me personally that really made me 100% no longer trust ANY site about reviews. From now on I'll just stick to the previews and the trusted word of people on Neogaf, because this was the final nail in the coffin of game journalism. The first nail was a guy named Hiphopgamer for anyone taking notes. R.I.P Game Journalism 3/9/2010
I'll agree. I hate MetaCritic as much as the next person, but if you think they are burying reviews just contact them explaining they missed one. Then they'll have to add it. Of course, you need to make sure it comes from a source they accept: you can find a listing under the link 'What is a Metascore?' on the left-hand side of the gaming section. I can tell you for a fact that the editor will listen. A recent example would be Eurogamer Portugal's review of God of War III. They must have forgot to include their perfect score, so I reminded them, and voila. Though I dislike Metacritic's system, I try to help them out once in a while so that they are a tiny bit more reliable. Now, as for those wondering why the scores are dramatically different when we all know the PS3 version is superior, it probably has something due to the effect of their weighting system. This is precisely why I hate Metacritic. What they'll do is evaluate a source based on three criteria: how long they've been around, how often they review games, and the quality of their journalism. Unfortunately, they do not apply this to an individual writer, but, instead, apply it to the whole publication as if all the writers satisfy those exact same criteria, which is obviously not true. For example, in the case of FFXIII. They put a hefty weight on EDGE (a gaming magazine which I detest, but let's not get into that), meaning that 5/10, could have three times the weight let's say a relatively new and inexperienced site such as PlayStation Universe has. In my opinion, this practice is unprofessional. Not only do you show selective treatment, but you have no idea whether or not the individual staff satisfies those requirements. EDGE hires a lot of freelancers. Some of these freelancers have had lots of experience, while others have had barely any. This can go for their main staff as well. Sometimes they'll hire a complete "newb." Other sites like IGN I'm sure have buckets of weight too, just because of how long they've been around. GameRankings plays it a bit more safe. They don't weigh in particular source (at least, to my knowledge). They just calculate the average. However, they fail to include most sources. Sometimes they'll even list them but fail to include them by placing double asterisks next to the site's name, meaning they acknowledge the source but won't add them to the average. Both are a bit shady. GameStats evaluates much in the same vein as GameRankings. However, they go one up by calculating the final average by adding the press score average and the users' average and then dividing by two. This gives you a bit more of an idea as to the universal consensus. Unfortunately, they don't list every site either. In my opinion the best sources for aggregates are N4G, GameFly, and GameFAQs. N4G because they weight nothing and include everything, GameFly because it incorporates thousands of user scores with realistic expectations, and GameFAQs because of their user reviews and user aggregates. I'll look at the aggregates, read a couple of the articles/reviews for a particular title, and compare it to other games in the genre that I like. This often gives me a better idea of whether or not to buy a game than Metacritic or GameRankings. Sorry for the long post, but I thought some of you would like to know what exactly is going on. Also, give the sites I mentioned above a quick look see. I think you'll appreciate what they have to offer.
Well if you notice it's because there are more websites/magazines that reviewed the PS3 version than the xbox 360 specifically PlayStation websites like psm3magazineuk gave it a 70 and a few other PlayStation magazines/websites as well.
will it ever end? I cannot wait until a month from now when NO ONE cares about Final fantasy XIII reviews
Ive gotten disagrees, lost bubbles, got my comment deleted, but I guess thats wat happens now adays when u speak the truth. Ill say it one more time. THE MEDIA WANTS PS3 TO FAIL!!! THEY ARE BIASED AGAINST PS3! Dont pay attention to any of them. If this story doesn't open your eyes about whats going on, then I dont know wat will. Its they typical media crap. They want the American company to beat the big bad Japanese company. Thats all.
what does everyone have against DVD, pc uses it and playes games at 2560p, although the future of console gaming is Bluray still there is nothing bad about dvd other than disk swapping
thats some crazy sh1t right there. The world is going mad I tell you... MAD!
Keep those "media bias" conspiracy theories coming - it only makes you look more and more foolish. Conspiracy theories are for weak-minded people who don't want to believe the obvious truth, so they need to make up UNPROVABLE theories to make themselves feel better.
... oh ... you mean kinda the same bias the Japanese have against our "round-eye games". Just saying the boat floats both ways on that double edged sword, mgm.
weve known the media is biased against ps3 for a long time now, some people like to pretend its not true even though proof is always coming up.
The 360 version has only bin reviewed by 22 critics. & PS3 like 46. I smell bias journalism on Metacritic.
Your an idiot, thats about all i can say. You dont even know what AAA really means, and your ignorance is as bad as your spelling. You should not be qualified to interact with small children, and you should not be given free reign of the First Amendment.
biased journalism at its finest.
I always argued that metacritic was as unbiased as it gets but obviously when they say they use a weight average of all the reviews they meant weight to the favor of 360. Pathetic and they clearly got caught out here.
hmm we all know whats going on their.. 3 DISKS FTWW!!!
This is proof of the hypocrisy that exists among most of the gaming sites and magazines. It's amazing how bad they reviewed the PS3 Bayonetta compared to the xbox version (granted, the PS3 version was the inferior one), yet the xbox final fantasy is scoring higher when it is known, proved, and accepted that it is the inferior version of the two. How shameful
Not really proof of hypocrisy but more on the stupidity of using Metacritic for an overall score.
It's all a conspiracy - just like Michael Jackson said.
this is precisely why we can't trust the media or reviewer's recently, if an exclusive was better on x360, they would make sure the ps3 version scored lower, now that we have a superior version of the game they mark it lower anyway, in what way is that fair??
I think everyone is totally misinterpretting what this means. If the xbox version is legitimately scoring higher it isn't because its superior to the PS3 version, its just because the Xbox reviews like it more than the PS3 ones (and so they should considering all the mediocre exclusives xbox has)
You're correct, there are lots of XBox only sites reviewing the game and probably helping to up the average. The thing that sucks but is the sites that are reviewing both versions and giving it the same score, when clearly the games are not equal.