Top
580°

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.

Read Full Story >>
smgamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
3473d ago Replies(21)
3473d ago Replies(6)
N4PS3G3473d ago (Edited 3473d ago )

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.

Anon19743473d ago (Edited 3473d ago )

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.

N4PS3G3473d ago (Edited 3473d ago )

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.

cpt3473d ago

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).

theEnemy3473d ago

that's pretty much it.

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

TheDeadMetalhead3473d ago (Edited 3473d ago )

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...

Consoldtobots3473d ago

meh

none of this means squat until Sony drops the price.

topdawg1223473d ago

@ 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

dragunrising3472d ago (Edited 3472d ago )

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 :-)

Sprudling3472d ago

"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.

Chimerhazzard3472d ago

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.

Jockamo3472d ago

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.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3472d ago
3473d ago
Raoh3473d ago

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

Anon19743473d ago

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.

Hutch23553473d ago

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.

GarandShooter3473d ago

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

Bubs.

Hutch23553473d ago

that disagreed, come on like its not true.

Raoh3473d ago

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..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3473d ago