Spookie Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/ign-responds-to-concerns-over-exclusive-gta-iv-review/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Not that I disagree on your observation, but I do not see nor can I think of a single scenario where one can be called a fanboy and that is a positive thing. I'm a fanboy for world of warcraft lore, and I actually got called out today by one of the games developers on the WoW Cataclysm forums for correcting people for my lore knowledge because he thought it was impressive about how much I knew and thought it was a great thing I was sharing my knowledge so freely and openly. That's... when it's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I would hate to be a fanboy for either side. They don't pay me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daty2k1 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Here's what Ars has to say on the subject: Our review copies of Red Dead Redemption have arrived, which means it's time to get to work on some coverage. Rockstar sent both a PS3 and a 360 version of the game, and many people are wondering which version to get, so we thought we'd do a quick comparison.This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360. Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3?not by any stretch?but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Just based on that quote, if I only had a PS3 I don't think I'd be disappointed by this game. It's not like a Bayonetta comparisson LingeringSoul 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Just based on that quote, if I only had a PS3 I don't think I'd be disappointed by this game. It's not like a Bayonetta comparisson It's quite astonishing how Bayonetta turned out on the PS3, when I play it on my 360 it just looks marvelous to get lost in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingeringSoul Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Just based on that quote, if I only had a PS3 I don't think I'd be disappointed by this game. It's not like a Bayonetta comparisson My thoughts exactly. This seems far more similar to the situation with Fallout 3, where the Xbox 360 version was clearly superior, but the PS3 version was still quite excellent in its own right. Like you said, it's not like the PS3 version is horribly broken or anything. That said, if I end up getting it, I'll definitely go for the 360 version. Lately I've been trying to use my PS3 more, since I think my 360 is on its last legs (I have a feeling this summer is going to do it in), but in this case, it's too hard to justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_I am Reptar Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 So what is a good site for legit game reviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingeringSoul Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 So what is a good site for legit game reviews? Off the top of my head, the only two review sites that I consistently trust are Giant Bomb and Eurogamer. Giant Bomb because it's run by some pretty cool folks, and Eurogamer because they're a little more critical than most. If Eurogamer gives a game a good score, I usually make a note to check it out. For the other guys, I usually just end up looking at Metacritic for a general impression of whether the game is good or bad. EDIT: Forgot Ars! Thanks Minifig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I trust Giant Bomb and Ars Technica more than anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I think Game Trailers ain't that bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 http://www.gamespy.com/articles/108/1082347p1.html http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/ign-responds-to-concerns-over-exclusive-gta-iv-review/ You seriously bet they weren't paid to write a favorable review of this? http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1056419p1.html : quote: http://horizonshadow.org/ign-you-redefine-biased/ OR.. the biggest incriminating link I have for you to read.. http://www.vgmwatch.com/?p=1111 Your first link doesn't even involve IGN, other than the article being featured on a site "powered by IGN". The everquest review (metacritic 74, ign 80) and gta4 review (metacritic 98, ign 100) are hardly outliers. The rest regard reviews for games, not for a particular console. In fact, the horizon shadow link shows IGN to be biased against PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted May 19, 2010 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2010 I'm a fanboy for world of warcraft lore, and I actually got called out today by one of the games developers on the WoW Cataclysm forums for correcting people for my lore knowledge because he thought it was impressive about how much I knew and thought it was a great thing I was sharing my knowledge so freely and openly. That's... when it's a good thing. I should have been more specific and stated in regards to a console, or any piece of electronics for that matter, basically anything that more often than not has a plastic casing that houses components. While I still do not necessarily think being a fanboy of anything is all always positive, as I do believe there is a point of taking things to far, I myself am a fanboy I suppose of certain things. Such as Battlefield or South Park just to name a few things. However there is a difference. Let me explain. Being a fanboy of a game or a TV series etc. is different as in my view they are more creative works of art. While one could make the argument a console could be considered a work of art or a computer can be, and I would indeed recognize that to perhaps be valid, I still feel overall they are lifeless. It is the software that brings them to life. As such I personally cannot relate to, or agree with being, a fanboy of an inanimate object. Posting once again from my Droid phone. Because of this it is harder to read everything I wrote at once, so did my best to make this cohesive. Bottom line is I see a difference between being a fanboy of electronics and being a fanboy of specific things. I just cannot relate to the former and I feel it is okay, at least to a certain extent, to be the latter. Again though I need to reiterate I believe it can be taken to far regardless. So overall I still do not view it as a positive thing, but I respect your example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maeby Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 while it may not be at the top of your list to check for video game reviews, the new york times has a well written, very positive review on RDR http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/arts/television/17dead.html?pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplySchizo Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 while it may not be at the top of your list to check for video game reviews, the new york times has a well written, very positive review on RDR http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Already posted here on official thread couple days ago. Which was then reposted just a few posts down from that lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I'm a Dirty Larry fanboy. DirtyLarry 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Can always rely on NeoGAF to fine tooth comb the differences. 360: PS3: There are also some issues with the dynamic lighting and cloud effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo2008jedi Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Is it wierd that I actually prefer the look of the PS3 version? :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Each to their own, I have to admit I don't like the sharpness of the 360 version. There isn't enough AA either so some of the white picket fences look awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Played both versions for a little while last night, Rockstar sent us both versions to review. As far as the differences between the 360 and PS3 versions, none of them matter. NONE. Especially in a moving screen instead of a static screenshot. You don't play games with a static screen. LingeringSoul 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsy66 Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 oh man i'm sure going to be cursing myself for owning the ps3 version when i notice i'm missing a bench and a few shadows. :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted May 19, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted May 19, 2010 oh man i'm sure going to be cursing myself for owning the ps3 version when i notice i'm missing a bench and a few shadows. :sleep: Sure, sounds like minor things, but when it's going the other way suddenlly the PS3 is the graphics powerhouse and pwns everything!?!?!? zomg! Fanboys or not aside, the hypocrisy at times around here is kinda funny. I'm speaking in general, not calling anyone out so lets not get mad ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0nyX Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Why is this happening? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean its the PS3 that has the Cell and the Blu Ray.Shouldn't PS3 be the one with the crisp detailed image and HD instead of sub HD gaming on general? I am asking coz i own a PS3 and i really want to know how on earth is this happening since i am not into consoles lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 360 does look better Why is this happening? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean its the PS3 that has the Cell and the Blu Ray.Shouldn't PS3 be the one with the crisp detailed image and HD instead of sub HD gaming on general? I am asking coz i own a PS3 and i really want to know how on earth is this happening since i am not into consoles lately. Microsoft simply has better tools to utilize the 360s capabilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0nyX Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 360 does look better Microsoft simply has better tools to utilize the 360s capabilities But it has been likewhat? 3-4 years both consoles are out? Shouldn't PS3 games developers being able to utilize PS3's full power if that is the problem? I recently bought GTA IV for my PS3 and was so excited and i was googling for it just to find out more stuff and i read that GTA IV also runs on sub HD on PS3 and on HD 720p at 360? Is that truth? And if yes what the hell does subHD mean? On a console that i connect via HDMI and has Blu Ray, terms like "subHD" are unacceptable imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts