IGN: Mirror's Edge Review

Just a few years ago Electronic Arts wasn't exactly known for taking chances on fresh ideas with new intellectual properties. This holiday season has already seen one stellar release from the mega publisher in the form of Dead Space and now we have the company's second attempt at establishing a new videogame franchise. It comes to us in the form of Mirror's Edge.

X360: 7.3
PS3: 7.4

Reasons for difference: "PS3 version looks just a bit cleaner than 360" and "PS3 bumpers are preferable to 360"

[St0]

Wow only 7.3, i was expecting atlease an 8/10 from IGN :O

[chaosatom]

I'll be renting both mirror's edge and dead space. :)

Just like heavenly sword :)

The games are meant to be rented not bought or missed completely.

[Baba1906]

dead space is way better than just a "rental". i think its really worth buying.

[Homicide]

It was always a rental for me. Looks like the game lacks replay value.

[celldomceen1]

deadspace is a buy not so sure about mirrors edge but ill give it a try see how i feel about it first.

[Bnet343]

Like I said all along, a game I can blow through in 3 days. Rental.

[chaosatom]

I didn't mean to demean dead space or anything.

I was talking about my rental preferences.

[CEO OF N4G]

To be honest im still bying this game.I dont let reviews stop me from playing a game.

[morganfell]

Considering there were alternate routes in the demo I don't think a rental will do for me. I bought Deadspace, I am buying this - already paid off, and Heavenly Sword was a purchase day one as well.

[JBaby343]

I liked the multiple routes in the demo and choices of how to go about things but I did feel a little confined in that you really couldn't go outside specific bounds (though I tried) like other nearby buildings. I expect the actual game will be completely open world. Can't wait to experiment.

Heavenly Sword was good too. I've played multiple times performing all the combos.

[gaffyh]

I gotta say Dead space is pretty awesome, much better than I expected. 7.4 seems pretty low for Mirror's Edge, surely it deserves a little more than that, but IGN are usually right.

[kevnb]

this is how they treat games with no depth.

[joydestroy]

agreeing with everyone else, Dead Space is a buy. i've played through it once and am half way through it again. it's just sick how EA did such a good job for once.

Mirror's Edge = fail
not my type of game at all. would've gotten it if it had been in third person. just the way it plays, it makes me dizzy, seriously.

IGN again tells it like it is.

[BlackTar187]

is one of the best games i played this year.

Def. a purchase. Support titles that deserve it support Dead Space awesome first effort and cant wait to see the second effort.

[I_LOVE_MYSELF]

wtf 7.3 is a good score
he basically just said this title will click for some and not for others... for me it clicked after playing the demo... 7.3 is a good score to the right buyers just not a game for everyone... its just a shame the review system is so lame these days

[Le-mo]

Wow, I'll be honest, that's way lower than I expect it.

[meepmoopmeep]

yeah, i was thinking the lowest it would get was 8.

i'm still getting it, i've played a game that scored 5's and loved it.
the demo was all i needed to make my own decision.

i wish every game would release a demo for us to try.

[lowcarb]

I'm with you there meep.

[JBaby343]

The demo played great and this does seem to offer a unique perspective and play style. This game has definitely intrigued me. Will have to wait for the full game to give it the only score that really matters to me. MINE.

[IcarusOne]

Because I did my own comparison of the demos. Both systems were output at 1080i via the same HDMI cable.

Visuals: While it's true the PS3 version looked slightly better (less contrast, subtler hues and saturation), it also had a lot more jaggies than the 360. I was easily able to tweak the options on the 360 to get a comparable look, but there's no way to hide the PS3 jaggies. Framerates both felt solid. Also, oddly enough, the 360 had a wider field of view. While it doesn't exactly affect the gameplay, I was surprised - like the 360 has a wider lens than the PS3.

Controls - I disagree with IGN's Head-to-Head completely on this, but I use my S-type a lot more than my Dualshock. I missed way more jumps on the PS3 because the shoulders are more analog sensitive than the bumpers. Since the game has no variations on the strength of a jump (you either jump or you don't), I liked the bumper a lot more. The S-type joysticks (being heavier and tighter on the tension) also allowed me to be more specific with my directional control. The Dualshock felt more jerky and spastic and several times I overcorrected and missed my mark completely.

Just one guy's opinion.

[DiabloRising]

If this doesn't prove then that reviews are OPINIONS, I don't know what will...

[badz149]

ok, we're clear on that and I'm with IGN on this one. the idea of the game is brilliant but the downside of having this type of game is to have a very linear gameplay! I got dizzy while playing the demo but the linearity of the game is too obvious especially when the things that you can grab is marked clearly in red which act like arrows in driving games. but the difference between the 2 is, when driving you can take alternative routes but in Mirror's edge, you're on rooftops and there are pretty much nowhere else to go but following the only routes available! if the full game is anything like the demo, which is very likely so, I'll pass.

[The XBOT]

I reviewed the game when it was leaked and posted my review here:
http://the-final-round.blog...

graphics 9 great art, crisp graphics
sound 8 very good sound effects and music
control 7 not the best, but it works
gameplay 6 frustrating at times, good at other times, repetitive at most times
replay 6 short game, limited mulitplayer

Overall 7.2 (OK)

I got it dead right.

[Deviant]

damn ..the only site im respecting
mhm :/

[Sony Rep]

X360: 7.3
PS3: 7.4

Just passing by...

[JBaby343]

That could easily be construed as fighting words... er um numbers.

[Sony Rep]

X360: 7.3
PS3: 7.4

Reasons for difference: "PS3 version looks just a bit cleaner than 360" and "PS3 bumpers are preferable to 360"

[heyheyhey]

don't stoop to their level and make a big deal over it.... all these minor differences are so negligible

[JBaby343]

But after all the crap I've heard and still hear at times from the "other side" I don't have much of a problem with what he says. They certainly aren't about to come all the way up to our level.

[Kleptic]

I hate this crap...doesn't matter which version is 'better'..every multiplat this game this generation has been so close, it doesn't matter...unless its something so drastic as to simply not buy it for one system over the other, it should only be mentioned, and not reflected in the score...

seriously IGN?...bumpers are better on the PS3 controller?...that is like when a 360 fanatic tells me the DS3 sucks for first person shooters...funny how I prefer the DS3 over the 360 controller anyday regardless of the game...just because I agree with that opinion, doesn't change the fact that its simply an opinion...and shouldn't change a games score...

Now when its something like the differences between FEAR on the 360 and PS3...make the shortcomings known...that game sucked on the PS3...was nearly unplayable, and looked like complete crap...the 360 version was nearly identical to a high end PC...its fair in that context...

[PopEmUp]

what the different does that really make. I mean really .1 different is that the thing you fanboy brag about all days long, this is getting out of shape

on topic this game I thought it deserve an 8 but either way, it still a good review and a good game at least for a rent If you not so sure I mean

[wetowel]

why did the 360 version get a 7.3 and the ps3 version get 7.4?

[Ghoul]

the ability to read is a huge accomplishment

[ELite_Ghost]

someone's jealous... ;)

[morganfell]

I love when I find things like this:

"because theyre idiots"

Self ownage is priceless.

[DiabloRising]

Inane, you do realize this has been happening in the opposite situation for 2 years now right? Even when the differences were SLIGHTY in the 360's favor (Achievements, rumble, really?) it was marked higher.

Now that the reverse has happened... well... I see a lot of hypocrisy awaiting this thread. That or "its only a 7, flop" comments.

[Dark General]

Now you know how the other side felt the entire time. Pointless point deductions for the most stupidest reasons. I don't really think that for a small VERY MINOR thing should be a point deduction for either version of either game. More bugs in one version i can agree with the deduction but when it's some small graphical difference it really makes no difference.

[kevnb]

2xaa makes a huge difference, otherwise the ps3 version would look miles better. The ps3 version is of overall better quality but with no aa, it has jaggies left and right because of it. The 360 version has 2xaa (the smallest amount you can have), but lower quality textures, some texture pop, lower quality shaders etc... I think they should just call it a tie.

[morganfell]

This is the type of crap that 360 owners were using the past year to beat up on PS3 owners. Well now the shoe is on the other foot. Seems senseless doesn't it. Do you think it is insignificant and PS3 owners should take the high road? You aren't going to get your wish on that. Neither do you deserve such leniency. The fact is the first chance 360 owners get they will be back at the throat of PS3 owners so why should they not avail themselves of this chance.

They say "Never kick a person when they are down." Can you think of a better time? Wait until those 3 year warranties expire and consoles that blow up have to be paid out of pocket.

Just be warned. That shoe that is on the other foot is going to stay on the other foot and become less and less fitting as time passes. This is not the first nor will it be the last review to make 360 owners smart just a little. 360 backers are lucky it wasn't worse. But the smarting is going to get worse and the gap will continue to widen as the 360 falls further behind in Multiplatform games. Be thankful it is only graphics. Next comes differences in level sizes and such as companies stop trying to make both versions identical.

[ultimolu]

Wow...just wow.

360 fans were running around claiming superiority on a multiplatform game because it looked *better* on their system. Now that the PS3 version of a multiplatform game scores one point higher, now they're crying.

Seriously, buy the game if you want or don't buy it. Either way, I'm getting it and I don't care about the score.

[IcarusOne]

"The fact is the first chance 360 owners get they will be back at the throat of PS3 owners so why should they not avail themselves of this chance."

From someone standing on the sidelines, I've noticed that Sony fans are much more vicious and rampant on this site than 360 fans.

[Rhythmattic]

Quite Simply, Your Right.

XBoxers own every other site..... Here at least.... There is a Balance.

Maybe?

[Sony Rep]

It's good to know that mega game publishers like EA are encouraging more PS3 support. Soon, we'll have a whole lot more games developed on the PS3 first in 09.

PS3 is the future...

[Excalibur]

$10 an hour on a video game is not a good price IMO.

[tplarkin7]

You're just running the whole time. If you fall, you die in many cases. You can't climb back up and explore the environment. I think a 7 is too high. It's like Half-Life 2 without guns.

[kevnb]

for example, to me Shadow of The Colussus is worth more than any other game created.

[poopsack]

"If you fall you die" go jump off a building see if you stand back up and "explore"

[JBaby343]

Well said. I read his comment and was like "huh?"

[Arkham]

("It's a trap!")

This will not end well.

[RadientFlux]

I'm still going to pick up Mirror's Edge. Loved the demo and soundtrack was amazing as well.

[ultimolu]

Me too. I like the art direction of the game.

[spec_ops_comm]

The title song was the PERFECT choice for this game. Whoever was the genious at DICE that chose the intro piece should definitely get a big Christmas bonus.

Kudos to IGN though - that was one of the best produced/editted video reviews I have ever seen.

[n4gzz]

well, seems like this game is not for everyone but I loved the demo so i am buying it.

[Naked-Snake]

it will be Assassin's creed all over again.

[Danja]

oh this will get nasty..because of a 0.1 difference....lol

im still buying this game i'll just play it on the hardest game level so the game feels longer plus the PS3 is getting DLC so there's a bit more replay value added to the PS3 version...the demo was great so im sold...

[Harry190]

Harry190 gives this game a 9/10 just because it makes you look and feel awesome. It's also better suited for the PS3 controller(You knew I was going to say something like that). When reviewers start saying how they love games instead of playing them to find flaws, then I will read or listen.

[Blink_44]

Thats what i would of given it.

[bomboclaat_gamer]

yup. i said i wasnt all hyped about this game and u guys shot me down. noobs

[tplarkin7]

I'm perplexed at the hype for a game where you run from people shooting at you.

[poopsack]

and unknowing of the fact that you can use a gun in the game also. I hate innovation in gameplay.

[JBaby343]

Got him again. The combat system has some nice possibilities in addition to the gun work. Hopping rooftops to escape or scaling walls is just one option, or actually that would be two huh.

[Arsenic13]

Again IGN isn't a god. They are just published opinions, this wont affect my purchase one bit.

Hahaha, some pathetic loser thinks they are gods. Wow.

[Harry190]

Amen Brother.

[dkgshiz]

Other then that, its just a standard, very short game.

[JBaby343]

But I wouldn't call this one standard. The art direction and concept, especially from a first person perspective, is not ordinary. I wouldn't call the combat system ordinary either as it does put a different spin on things especially once you experiment a little.

[IzKyD1331]

Why is it that the innovative games never succeed? I was hoping SO MUCH that this would be awesome, but I guess its a rent for me....

[morganfell]

Why because some reviewer you won't trust next week says so? They didn't slow my intent to purchase one iota.

[heyheyhey]

ouch... a bit low for such a fresh idea and great gameplay

repetetive eh? 2009's Assassins Creed

[Kleptic]

2008's you mean?...did I miss something?...when does this release?...

going by the demo:

new ideas...great art direction...but, at least the demo, lacked a crucial aspect...being fun...that is pretty important to me...and usually a ~7/10 from IGN reflects pretty accurately how much fun a game is for me...I usually agree with them over most other reviewers...

[YonasJonas]

Just because it hasn't been done doesn't make it a good idea. It hasn't been done for a reason, and that reason being it's a dumb idea.

[jammy_70]

a better vision from the ps3 for once :)

[Foxgod]

yeah the power of the cell is really showing with that 0.1 difference.

[Sarcasm]

No, the power of the Cell is Killzone 2.

Then again you'll never see that game seeing as how you hate anything PS3 related.

[JBaby343]

So you won't see the Cell making a big difference. Plus it's not like the UE3 engine even necessitates having the Cell. There are games/engines that do. You should look them up to see what's possible.

The differences in this game are negligible in my opinion.

[4cough]

IGN ps3 fanboys, The ps3 version has no AA and I doubt its even running in 720p due to it nasty blur and the Ps3 pad has bumbers ????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa IGN you FAIL

[ELite_Ghost]

def renting this game :)

[Strawberry]

ps3 has higher score

[Anon1974]

What gives? When IGN rated Fallout 3 0.2 lower on the PS3 the forums were filled with crowing 360 fans proclaiming the PS3 version was broken, fataly flawed, the PS3 was doomed, etc...etc. Funny that I don't see PS3 fans lighting up the forums when it happens against the 360. Could it be that in cases like these a slight difference between consoles really doesn't affect the gameplay or the overall worth of these games in the slightest? Just throwing that out there. And that these slight differences really don't matter, except to 360 fans?

[JBaby343]

Leave them be as KZ2 will end all the talk.

[running rampid]

i love the demo. it's a definite buy for me.

[FReeDoM4ALL]

I will be buying this game.

[Sleebs]

I don't really trust IGN reviews anymore. I personally stick to GameSpot or Gametrailers.

[Deviant]

:D
well GT is ok even though they had some problems in the past

[Sarcasm]

BLEH Gamespot is the worst out of the three.

Gametrailers and IGN is usually pretty spot-on.

The worst of the worst is Giantbomb and 1up.

[RPG Guy]

then you must be a 360 lover cause those are two of the most anti-everything else sites on the net! Gamespot? After last year's Kane & Lynch / Ratchet and Clank debaucle, you still trust them? And Gametrailers? After being exposed in their PS3 videos acting as "360 footage" and their BS comparisons, you trust THEM?

Oh boy...I'll take IGN's word anyday...though they horribly overrated Resistance 2.

[kevnb]

And I also think Resistance 2 is just an awesome awesome game.

[ReTarDedFisHy]

so it has cleaner graphics and exclusive DLC too?

Meh, Mirror's Edge ain't my game anyway.

LOL @ the 0.1 difference though.

[Anon1974]

Sleebs said "I don't really trust IGN reviews anymore. I personally stick to GameSpot or Gametrailers."

Really. Knowing that Gamespot reviews can be bought and sold by advertisers, you prefer Gamespot? They're known the internet over for their anti-Sony bias in news reporting, moderation of their forums and reviews (probably having something to do with their parent having strong ties to Microsoft), not to mention that reviews have been tempered time and time again by complaints from their advertisers. They've become a joke the past 2 years. And Gametrailers...please. I wouldn't think anyone would take anything they print seriously after they were caught faking Grid comparisons to try to make the 360 look better. Use Metacritic. At least the numbers of metacritic scores tend to average out the scores from reviewers with clear biases.

[Nineball2112]

They're known the internet over for their anti-Sony bias in news "reporting, moderation of their forums and reviews."

As you can probably tell, I haven't been over to Gamespot in quite a while because of the blatant mod bias and all of the trolls.

You think it's bad with flaming on every thread here, you should check out there comment sections for news.

[ultimolu]

"Really. Knowing that Gamespot reviews can be bought and sold by advertisers, you prefer Gamespot? They're known the internet over for their anti-Sony bias in news reporting, moderation of their forums and reviews (probably having something to do with their parent having strong ties to Microsoft), not to mention that reviews have been tempered time and time again by complaints from their advertisers."

AMEN.

Can't say anything remotely negative about the 360 or heaven forbid point out a flaw there. They will throw the ban hammer on you in a heartbeat.

[SaberEdge]

You mean that some PS3 fanboys have complained that Gamespot are biased. Nothing has been proven. Same thing with Gametrailers. I personally think IGN is showing more and more pro-PS3 bias and I am not really trusting many of their reviewers any longer.

[mandykay]

I think he's simply saying the game deserves more credit than a high 7, which is why he doesn't regularly read IGN.

[Covenant]

.1 difference! .1 DIFFERENCE!

Flamethrowers at the ready!

j/k

That's a lot lower than I would have expected. Other reviewers may be more forgiving, but IGN's reviews tend to carry a lot of weight and often reflect overall opinion.

[running rampid]

a disagree? oh god. i was talking about myself not you! you don't have to buy it if you don't want to. damn guy has been stalking me all week.

[belal]

hello bots wheeeere areeeeeyouuuuuuu ? come ouuuuuuuut and plaaaaaaayyyyeeeeee!!!!!!

even though this game is avrage, its really creative and fresh, everyone should try it atleast give it a rent ;)

[dragunrising]

Generally, I hold ign.com reviews to the highest esteem. Sure they have a few screw-ups but I can understand where the reviewer is coming from. In this review I am surprised they are so critical of it; granted it is a new experience and fresh. In playing the demo...which I did 5 times, not once did the experience grow stale. I suppose it goes to show that metacritic really does get it right. The reviews seem to be in the 80's and 90's.

Another review ign.com got completely wrong was Prey. Because of the 9.0 given to that broken multiplayer, 6 hour game, I shelled out 60 bones. I should know better than to trust a single review source. :-p

In being a multi-console owner I agree with ign.com assessment that the PS3 version looks better. It might have a few more jaggies but it is brighter and has better textures and shadowing.

[InMyOpinion]

Enjoy the better version PS3 fans! Making PS3 the lead platform paid off it seems.

I loved the demo and expected higher scores from IGN.

[RPG Guy]

Either way, not good news for Mirror's Edge. Oh, and 360 fans, I hope you enjoy the taste of the bitter 0.1 underscoring PS3 fans have had to put up with for the past 2 years. Personally, owning both consoles, I rarely see ANY difference if I play both versions through rental availability, but that's just me. I ain't no critic I guess. Should make for some fun fanboy wars though!

[MK_Red]

What is it with IGN and free running games? Last year they gave 7 to Assassin's Creed and now to this?

[n4gzz]

assassin creed is no better than 7. Game full of glitches, frame rate drop and so repetitive, No replay value at all.

[Immortal Kaim]

The thing that sh*ts me, is the fact that only one system gets the DLC. Are they serious? We pay $100 for the damn game (Australian) and dont get all the perks of spending our hard earned cash on the title.

Fallout 3 for 360, Mirrors Edge on the PS3, its all the same, stop with the exclusive DLC please....

[Sanhlami]

playing the demo I had a feeling that it would get something like this. I agree with all the things the reviewers said. If Dice makes a mirror's edge 2 with multiplayer and a more open world with more combos and deeper story then it would be over 9 for sure. Love the concept but they could have expanded on it more.

[2 cents]

I would`t say fangirls got owned but it sure is a rub in the face to all those who said x360 version looks better

[Needles]

Here comes the mother of all comments from Needles...."This game is a...FLOP!!!"

[SaberEdge]

Nate Ahearn has lost all credibility with me. Claiming the PS3 version looks better? How? I have played both versions and he is full of it.

The PS3 version doesn't look better, it's actually the other way around. The two versions are virtually identical except the 360 version has better anti-aliasing (2xAA on 360 vs none on the PS3) and less screen tearing. This has all been well documented. How he gets off saying the PS3 version looks better is beyond me.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

Here are the two screenshots from Beyond3d showing the degree of aliasing in both versions:

360: http://img125.imageshack.us...
PS3: http://img82.imageshack.us/...

As for the greater degree of screen tearing found in the PS3 version, this has been proven using the 'Digital Foundry frame analyzer'. Here is what Digital Foundry had to say about both versions:

"A quick analysis of the demo reveals that in common with most UE3 titles, Xbox 360 still holds the technical edge, but PS3 manages to hold its own. Both PS3 and 360 versions have their fair share of 'jaggies', but the overall experience is a little smoother on the Microsoft console, thanks to the inclusion of selective 2x multisampling anti-aliasing (MSAA). Bearing in mind some of the UE3 disappointments on PS3 - BioShock, Area 51 etc - it's remarkable that the PS3 version is as close as it is in what is clearly a cutting edge game. According to the Digital Foundry frame analyser, both games operate at 30fps, but in the sample of 10,875 frames (around 3 minutes of like-for-like video), only 178 frames were torn in the 360 version - a paltry 1.6%. The PS3 version is more difficult to analyse as the vast majority of the torn frames are restricted to the first couple of lines of resolution - basically imperceptible to the human eye, most likely hidden in the overscan area of your HDTV, and therefore shouldn't be included in the analysis. So adjusting the detector to disregard those, the figure rises to 3.8%."

The above analysis is objective proof that the PS3 version has more screen tearing.

I am getting so tired of people claiming there is no difference between different versions of multi-platform games, only to later find out for myself that there are very significant differences. And for all those people asking "why do people care which version looks better"? Damn, are you people stupid? People care because many of us own both consoles (PS3 and 360) and want to know which version performs better. It's as simple as that. That's not too unreasonable. In my opinion, reviewers are not doing their job when they don't tell us exactly what the differences are between two versions of a multi-platform game. Due to all the whining from single-console fanboys who don't like to hear about the differences many reviewers are shying away from doing honest comparisons, and that makes me upset. The problem is, though, that the reviewers are sometimes fanboys themselves and flat out lie, as Nate Ahearn has done in his review of Mirror's Edge.

The Xbox 360 version of Mirror's Edge unquestionably performs better than the PS3 version.

I can virtually guarantee that other reviews will be published that directly contradict this IGN reviewer's ridiculous claim that the PS3 version looks better. Except instead of making some lame unsupported statement like Nate Ahearn did when he said "PS3 version looks just a bit better than 360", other reviewers will actually back up their findings with specific reasons why they feel one version outperforms the other. IGN is losing more and more of my respect.

[GUNS N SWORDS]

that was posted on N4G.

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/...

[n4gzz]

quit crying and go play ur game.

[celldomceen1]

i've been wondering when did opinions become banned how is can something that is open to interpretation be proved one way or another hahahahhahaha vexes me one person thinks the ps3 version looks better its ok its his opinion let him have like you have yours.

[Rhythmattic]

Here's my analysis .....

.1 Means F All.

[0verdrive]

those comparisons were made based on the demo. the demo is in no way a medium to judge which version performs better. i also suspect that the ps3 version of the demo is an earlier build, because it gets ported over to 360, just like the full game.

on top of that, now that all the reviews are out, i have paged through them and have seen no one say a word about the 360 version runnning better. if you can find me a review that analysis that, i might reconsider, but until then, shut your mouth and stop crying about igns professional review, because they have played both versions, and you have not.

[kazan]

always liked IGN's reviews and this game is a 7-7.5 NO more anyone can tell from the demo

[GamingGeekPS3360]

Very blah experience.....does nothing for me...but thank EA

[GameHound]

In my opinion these guys one of the last of very few reviewers who seem trustworthy these days. They've got it bang on for all the games I've liked and disliked over the last year.

This is a fair score for this game. I played it a while ago and thought it was refreshing but just not enough there to compete with other games around right now. The game would make a great rental.

[kazan]

i totally agree with you, IGN is my number 1 reference for games and this game is a 7-7.5 just from looking at the demo and IGN hit it right most of the time good site :)

[Pika-pie]

I expected this game to be a 7-8, If there was nothing else to play Id probebly get it. Good news is that we are lucky gamers at the moment.

[Figboy]

on the 360: 8/10-8.5/10.

decent game is marginally better on the PS3: 7.4/10.

anyway, 7.3/7.4 out of 10 is a good score.

i think, because of the way the gaming media was rating SO many 360 games in the A's and 9/10 scores during it's first year, games that didn't warrant it
Ghost Recon 360, A+, really? is it that classic? then why aren't people talking about it anymore? people are STILL clamoring about Call of Duty 4. THAT'S a classic.
Lost Planet, A?
Gripshift, A?
Flatout Ultimate Challenge, A?
The Darkness, A? (i enjoy this game, but it's hardly an A, i'd give it a B tops)
Crackdown, A? (another fun game, but it was VERY repetitive, and only took a few hours to beat the story mode and max out your skills; i did it in 12. for a sandbox game, that's unacceptable)
Tony Hawk's Project 8, A?
Perfect Dark Zero, A?
PGR3, A?
COD2, A?
King Kong, A?
Rainbow Six Vegas 2, A? (i know it's good, but is it really a classic like COD4, or Mass Effect?)
DMC4, A? (it's good, but is it really an A?)

all scores taken from 1up, but i think i've made my point; so many games got slapped with an A score that it dilutes the rating system.

there IS no high bar anymore, because too many "review" sites have sh*t all over that high bar.

games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, MGS4, COD4, Uncharted, Braid, Gears of War, Resistance 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Little Big Planet, etc, THOSE titles deserve to be in the A - A+/, 9/10-10/10, "Instant Classic," category. not the games i've listed above. those are the games that set the bar for their respective genres, and then RAISES it.

7.5-8.5/10 scores should be considered purchases. chances are, if you are interested in that genre, you will enjoy the game enough to purchase it.

games like Fable 2, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiden, Mirror's Edge, Far Cry 2, Folklore, etc. they are good games, and for the most part, technically good games, but they aren't quite pushing the bar the way the top dogs are. still worthy additions to your gaming library.

6.5-7/10 games are RENTALS. they aren't in the top two tiers above, but they have some enjoyable gameplay, even if they are, basically, not reinventing the wheel. you WILL have some fun with this game, but it's not a perfect thrill ride. games like Haze, Lair, Too Human, Banjo, the latest Lego games, etc. they are worth playing, but not worth dropping $60 on (or whatever the max price is for your region).

5-6/10 games are average, and not really worth considering. they have poorly executed gameplay design/controls, visuals, WHATEVER. they just aren't worth your time. even if you might be a fan, these games are probably worth skipping. games like Kane and Lynch, Turok, Blacksite: Area 51, Splinter Cell: Double Agent PS3 version, Conan, Viking, Spider-Man 3 etc, fall into this category.

1-4/10 scored games; just NO. look away, and never look back. the devs didn't even BOTHER to reach for anything but the standard, and STILL managed to fall far below it. the game fails at everything from controls, to visuals, to gameplay design. even if the story is interesting, and the concept sound, this game is an "avoid at all costs" type deal. games like Alone in the Dark, Silent Hill Homecoming, Legendary, etc, fall into this category (i love Silent Hill, but Homecoming is so far below what is expected of an Silent Hill, it's not worth even CONSIDERING if you're a fan. i bought it, $60 WASTED! slogged through it, and happily returned it. unfortunately, my view of the SH world has been tainted until it's returned to COMPETENT developers).

anyway, that's my own personal take on the ratings system, and when i see these reviews.

many others have their OWN set of standards; i've seen a lot of people call an 8/10 score a "flop," so they're clearly influenced by the new gaming curve the media has set in place since the outset of this generation, where games of certain consoles are demerited points for nitpicking reasons; give Heavenly Sword a 6/10, just because it's short?

doens't matter that the graphics were amazing, the story was really good with excellent heroes and villains, the controls were fluid, the combat was FUN, but hey, you could beat it in 6-8 hours, so, 6/10 and it doesn't singlehandely live up to the hype of the PS3 CONSOLE.

but hey, even though there are other games with SH*TTY graphics, god awful controls, crappy stories, and lame combat that scored HIGHER than Heavenly Sword; i'm looking at YOU Conan, that you can barely stand the first five minutes of the game, let alone play it ALL THE WAY THROUGH to the end, just to complain that you had so much fun with the game you WISH THERE WAS MORE OF IT, it makes PERFECT since that you'd give it a 6/10. /sarcasm.

*sigh* sorry about the rant, but man, everytime i think of the way the media raped Heavenly Sword it infuriates me. now, those that actually PLAYED the game, and not nitpicked it to death because the console it was on was particularly HATED at a the time, and it could do no right, are robbed of a sequel. it's like Beyond Good and Evil all over again (in terms of poor sales for a stellar game), but at least BG&E is getting a sequel; 4+ years after the fact, but still, it's getting one.

[RememberThe357]

The truth is out there. You find it, and I'll read it when you post it : )

[n4gzz]

lol that's funny. some of those games are F for me.

[Rhythmattic]

Said With Conviction and humbleness...

Right on the Money.

Bubble for U.

[Bren86]

Played the ps3 demo, it still looks like ****

[FrankenLife]

That is about what I expected. I questioned the hype for this game from day one. Not that I thought it was going to be a bad game, just that it wouldn't as good as everyone thought it would be.

[pshizle]

this game was made first platform for ps3 thus for slightly to not noticable graphix difference with the 360

better controller ummm....matter of opinion i like 360 controller for most games than the ds3

[XT-1000]

Poor xbots, just one AAA exclusive this year, RROD MASSACRE and not this. It's surely not funny to be an xbot :(

[MvmntInGrn]

Good review and score, great game idea but the concept needs to be flushed out a bit more.

I will likely still get it in a few weeks.

As far as the .1 goes, From what I have seen of both versions the 360 looks smoother thanks to AA, but the PS3 has sharper texture work. They both use different styles of lighting but I have heard the 360 method hurts the look at certain parts.

So if you are solely basing on AA then 360, but with a game where simplicity is key, bad lighting and less sharp textures makes the PS3 take lead.

As far as torn frames. I have yet to see tearing in the PS3 version, unlike 360. Likely it is like Wipeout HD which has tearing in the overscan region so only 1:1 TVs will show it. Most aren't going to see it. Again that means in majority 360 players are more likely to see tearing.

.1 seems fair, these are minor differences.

[SaberEdge]

Except the PS3 doesn't have "sharper texture work". People keep trying to claim this and it has been shot down repeatedly. Nowhere in any of the screenshots or videos do we see any examples of these supposedly sharper textures on the PS3. I have compared the two versions at length and there is not a damn bit of difference in the resolution of the textures between the two versions.

Look at these comparison screenshots:
http://www.eurogamer.pt/gal...

Or look at these two screenshots from Beyond3d:
360: http://img125.imageshack.us...
PS3: http://img82.imageshack.us/...

It's clear that the textures are exactly the same in both versions. We can also see that the color balance is very similar in both versions. The Xbox 360 version does have more prominent HDR lighting effects which results in the highlights being brighter and the shadows being darker. I think this HDR lighting looks good and the PS3 version looks a little flat to me, but in any case that is just a matter of personal taste. Jaggies and screen tearing are differences in performance and are not really a matter of personal taste. After all, who would prefer to have more jaggies and screen tearing?

What is unarguable is that the 360 version has better anti-aliasing and less screen tearing. Some people are trying so hard to make both versions out to be equal that they come up with all these bogus claims about the PS3 version that simply are not true. The PS3 version does not have better texture work. Nor does it have better lighting. Both of those claims are completely false.

[SaberEdge]

Oh, and you're completely wrong about the screen tearing issue. The Digital Foundry frame analyzer found that the PS3 had over twice as much screen tearing as the 360 version.

"A quick analysis of the demo reveals that in common with most UE3 titles, Xbox 360 still holds the technical edge, but PS3 manages to hold its own. Both PS3 and 360 versions have their fair share of 'jaggies', but the overall experience is a little smoother on the Microsoft console, thanks to the inclusion of selective 2x multisampling anti-aliasing (MSAA). Bearing in mind some of the UE3 disappointments on PS3 - BioShock, Area 51 etc - it's remarkable that the PS3 version is as close as it is in what is clearly a cutting edge game. According to the Digital Foundry frame analyser, both games operate at 30fps, but in the sample of 10,875 frames (around 3 minutes of like-for-like video), only 178 frames were torn in the 360 version - a paltry 1.6%. The PS3 version is more difficult to analyse as the vast majority of the torn frames are restricted to the first couple of lines of resolution - basically imperceptible to the human eye, most likely hidden in the overscan area of your HDTV, and therefore shouldn't be included in the analysis. So adjusting the detector to disregard those, the figure rises to 3.8%."

Did you get that? On the 360 only 1.6% of frames were torn. On the other hand, even after they disregarded the frames that showed tearing in the first lines of resolution (which they say will be "most likely hidden in the overscan area of your HDTV") the PS3 version still showed 3.8% torn frames. So, Xbox 360 version had 1.6% torn frames, while PS3 version had 3.8% torn frames (actually more, if you count the frames that were disregarded). That means the PS3 version showed well more than twice as many instances of screen tearing as the 360 version. From my own time with both versions I can say that I noticed a lot more screen tearing in the PS3 version than the 360 version, especially in the area just before Celeste slides down the zip line to the rooftops below.

[0verdrive]

i mentioned this before, but those figures were taken from the demo of the game, and although the demo so happens to be the prologue of the actual game, theres really no point in comparing the two, because no one knows at what stage of development these demos were developed. until they come out with a comparison between final builds of the game, i say that your claims are moot.

i honestly dont know why you are getting so worked up over this. do you have both systems? probably not. and even if you do, why would you care which system has a slight graphical advantage? why dont you focus on more important things like DLC and which controller feels more comfortable to you.

but if you really want to argue, there is a tread somewhere on n4g that has a video comparison between the two. in the actual article they think the ps3 has a slight edge. go take it up with them.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

[GUNS N SWORDS]

because the 360 version appears brighter than the ps3 version, IGN miss took the 360 version for being flat, no big deal.

the comparison's here, the 360 version has been confirmed to be using 2xAA from Beyond3d and eurogamer.

http://www.videogamer.com/v...

(on a side note, Mirro's edge allows you to adjust brightness and contrast settings, by lowering the contrast you can retain the loss in visuals, it appears that the developers accidentally set the default settings a bit to high :)

[0verdrive]

ign made the mistake? lol. it does so happen to be the largest and most trusted gaming site on the internet, but i mean, good thing you went ahead and showed everyone that they dont know what they are talking about. /sarcasm

but in all seriousness, the AA issue has been addressed, and though the xbox version has minimal AA and ps3 does not, there are other graphical minor graphical differences that separate the two. what does your video prove, other than the minimal 2xAA? odd shading for 360?

[TheDesperado]

But I'm sure Eurogamer will have some slander against PS3 to share with us in their next "How much better can we falsely make the Xbox 360 multiplat games look?"

[SaberEdge]

Sure, 'cause you know it could never be that the PS3 versions of multi-platform games really do tend to look worse than their 360 counterparts. Sheesh, it's all a grand conspiracy against the PS3 in your mind, isn't it? I own both consoles and I agree with all the comparisons that have been done showing better looking Xbox 360 multi-platform games. I have seen the same thing on my own consoles. The reason the results of those face-offs show the 360 ahead on so many of the multi-platform games is because IT'S TRUE. If anything Eurogamer has been soft on the PS3 in their comparisons.

I would be willing to bet that the reason you feel the way you do is because you only own a PS3 and you are speaking from a lack of first-hand experience. I own both and I don't care about which one does better, I only care about what the truth is.

If I am wrong about you being a PS3-only gamer, please give me your Xbox LIVE gamertag.
My PSN ID is psykosonikninja.

[0verdrive]

the difference being, in the past 360 has lead and it has resulted in a drop in ps3 ports' performances. the ps3 has lead on this one, and many think that it shows, including the ign reviewer.

if you could cite something other than eurogamer that argues that the 360 version runs better, please do. i dont think very many people trust ps3 vs xbox comparisons on eurogamer. also, they did compare the two demos, rather than finished builds of the game, and that does not really deserve credibility in my book. i have yet to see any articles of credible sources claim that the 360 version runs better.

[dolomite]

Rejected E-surance commercials....

[ThisPlaceSucksBye]

But I'm getting worried at the amount of 7's this is getting.
Since this is not a multiplayer thing, I'll just wait a couple of months and get it cheaper on craigslist or ebay :)

[Host Samurai_]

Am I the only one that finds it wrong that this game got a 7.4 while a total uninspired generic FPS game that comes out every year gets a 9.2? Sorry, but that really rubs me the wrong way

[dcypha]

Gamers and critics are always clamoring for something new and innovative, but when they get it reviewers also classify them as niche titles and score them lower than an average fps shooter. I played the demo(and loved it the last demo that made me feel that way was skate) and didn't expect the game to get a 9-10. An 8-8.5 is the general area i figured because it was a new ip that is not based on shooting! I suggest people go out and rent the game to try it don't miss out on something fun and innovative because of 1 person's opinion.

[Traveler]

Ha, ha, ha...this IGN review is such a joke. They don't even bother to really explain why they thought the PS3 version looked better. Saying "PS3 version looks just a bit cleaner than 360" and not really giving specific examples makes this guy come off as a fanboy. How does it look cleaner Mr. Ahearn? It's already been shown quite conclusively that the Xbox 360 version has better anti-aliasing and less screen tearing. I thought the 360 version looked a lot "cleaner". I don't know what kind of crack this guy is smoking.

The review from videogamer.com said "There are problems, notably some rough textures in both versions of the game, a less than perfect frame rate and aliasing issues in the PS3 version, but they're not major." IGN contradicting what everybody else is saying really makes me doubt their judgment. This reminds me of the PS3 Bioshock review in which the reviewer claimed the PS3 version had better textures in some areas and it was later shown conclusively on Beyond3d that there were absolutely no difference in textures between the PS3 and 360 versions of the game.

[calis]

Jesus Christ, you are a moron.

A review is an opinion. IGN thinks PS3 is slightly better. Videogamer (who, by the way, is not 'everyone else') thinks the 360 version is.

Shockingly the only one here who sounds like a fanboy, is you.

[yanikins111]

WHAT IS THE DAMN NAME OF THAT SONG?

[smurfie4]

I wasn't expecting this game to score so low. I liked the demo despite the frustrating section where you had to walk across the metal beam.

[djslapdash]

If they would have improved the fighting aspect of the game, instead of just blu-tak-ing it on and also included some sort of 'stamina' feature to the game play the game would have been better.

[dcypha]

sorry but that is not the concept of the game though, then it will be just another shooter if the focus was put on that.

[ThaGeNeCySt]

I agree with the controller issues... the L1 feels better than LB for this sort of game

[Solbadguy]

have no regrets on the purchase since i got the bag along with it. Demo had me sold cause it seem like a game i can see myself beating over and over again. It also has time trial mode. Only one thing bad about this game, is that the bloom is too bright in some areas and rough on the eyes.

[anubis12]

i would say sony fansgirls got suckered with there exclusive content for a crappy game HURRAY!!!!

[calis]

you mean like x-queers get suckered for Tomb Raider exclusive DLC?

idiot.

[Power_of_Black]

Jason 360 comment:Actual Quote . Jason 360 - 2 days 4 hours ago
-""" What is real sad is many PS3 fans on this site refuse to see the truth and dream alot in never never land.
"just the facts mam"
What I love the most are the excuses "UE3 doesn't work well with the PS3" but they wern't saying that when UT3 came out before the 360's version, and they also sang a different tune about Mirrors Edge, and they lost that one to."""

Who lost Mirrors Edge now ??

Sorry i had to lower myself to this crap but i'm sick and tired of comment like those by people who talk out of they're ASS.

GiantenemyDouche , Power of G..arbage and Jason_Fanboy360 i'm talking about you guys . you are poluting this site and i can't take it anymore.

[mersenne]

too bad they chose ps3 as the lead platform
that cost a lot of time in development and it ended up being lower than they would except.
considering its built on UE3(which gives ps3 a hard time) they should have spend much more time in development cause ps3 games takes a lot of time to develop

[Anon1974]

mersenne said "too bad they chose ps3 as the lead platform that cost a lot of time in development and it ended up being lower."

What on earth are you basing that assessment on? That doesn't even make sense. It's common knowledge that it's easier to develop on the PS3 and port over to the 360 than the other way around. If anything you'd think that would have saved them development time and expense. You need to ask yourself this: If leading on the PS3 is more time consuming and costly - then why are so many companies switching to the PS3 as the lead? You'd be incorrect if your answer was that companies love to waste time and money. So it must be something else. If you think about this and answer "Because it'll save companies time and money," you'd probably be correct. Sure it would have saved time to just make the game on the 360, or make it on the 360 and ship a rushed port to the PS3, but then you miss out on a market of 16.5 million PS3 owners, almost halving your audience. Did you even think your statement through before you posted your thoughts?

[C_Dub]

Maybe I will only rent this game now, since my next purchase is probably LBP, FarCry 2, or Fallout 3.

[memots]

I want that game but there is just too many games and i dont have enough time. Loved the demo did the demo about 3/4 time. I think its great to see developer trying something different.

And IGN should give them point to taking risk. Seem these day if your not a over size steriod injected dude or a homo in a armor shooting aliens you wont get a good score.

There is more out there and generic fps.