Maybe now we'll get iDOLM@STER. Also, "wasn't very less forthcoming"? Presumably that's either "wasn't very forthcoming" or "was less than forthcoming"?
" The ps3 has less ram then the 360? That surprises me. "
They have the same amount of RAM but it's not usable in the same way. The 360 has 512MB of shared RAM, the PS3 has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of video RAM. So theoretically the hard limit on texture size is lower on the PS3, but it depends on how much RAM you need on the 360 for game code and data.
@MarcusOfLycia: But again, your opinion that games shouldn't get 9/10 or 10/10 unless they redefine the genre is your opinion. Some people think games shouldn't get a ten unless they're absolutely perfect, which means no game would ever get one. Some people just think that games which are awesome fun should get a ten for their awesome funnitude.
Whether a score is judging the game on its own merits or comparing it to others in the genre is, again, down to the individual's opinion; and the reader's opinion on whether the review is doing that will often be different from the reviewer's opinion.
Say an utterly awesome genre-redefining game comes out. You think it's clearly a ten game, so you score it ten. Then three months later another utterly awesome game comes out in the same genre, redefining it once again, and doing it better. That's obviously a ten game too. Is the previous one now not a ten game? If we're rating games by comparing them to others in the genre, clearly scores for games should decline over time as better ones come out.
Review scores are not objective valuations of what the game is worth to everyone in the entire world. There's no way they could possibly achieve that because someone who hates shooters is never going to rate CoD4 as highly as someone who loves them.
My opinion is that far too much time is wasted arguing about the goddamn numbers.
Log in to comment