Here are some interesting comparisons...
The most outrageous being...
Amped (Microsoft) - Gamespot rated it 6.7 - However Gamespot's users
think it deserved an 8.7, and the users are closer to the title's
overall score of 8.3 on Gamerankings.com (which averages scores of all
sites). Not to mention Gamespot has given Amped the lowest score out
of all of the video game websites on the internet. Gamespot cited the
low score for "shoddy gameplay". Now, granted the gameplay isn't as
easy to master as Tony Hawk, but it is a far, far cry from "shoddy".
In fact, it is very intuitive once you figure it out and get used to
it. Meanwhile, the shallow-in-comparison PS2 SSX Tricky gets a 9.4,
perhaps because it was easier to master? SSX has a very simple
learning curve, and I can only assume the reviewer of Amped didn't
dedicate the time necessary to learning a new control scheme. Adding
to this, the XBOX version of SSX Tricky gets an 8.8 because it has
"more slowdown" than the PS2 version. But, can you really take that
many points off the XBOX version when a few more instances of slowdown
(compared to the PS2 version which also has slowdown, but in less
places) are counteracted by better graphical special effects? All
this is rather pointless in my book anyway, since comparing SSX to
Amped is like comparing Ridge Racer to Gran Turismo. Moving on...
Wreckless (Activision) - No, it's not as deep as everyone hoped, and
lacks any free-roaming modes. However, does it deserve a score in the
6 range? Again, the users come closer to the overall Gamerankings
average of 7.6. Gamespot again falls to the bottom of the
Gamerankings list, this time giving it the second-lowest score out of
all the game websites.
Dead or Alive 3 (Tecmo) - Gamespot gives DOA3 a 7.9, stating its
problem is that it isn't much different gameplay-wise from the last
DOA, despite a graphical update. On the other hand, Tekken Tag
Tournament for PS2, which suffers from the same problem with little
change from Tekken 3, scored a 9.6. In the PS2 review, the lack of
change in gameplay is looked at in a positive light. That is rather
odd, don't you think? Especially with DOA3 offering some of the most
revolutionary graphics and environments found in a fighting game to
date. Again, Gamespot falls in the lowest five scoring websites for
this game on Gamerankings.com.
Star Wars Starfighter (LucasArts) - PS2 7.8, XBOX 7.2 - XBOX version
takes away the choppy framerates found in the PS2 version, has better
graphics in general, added missions and multiplayer modes, and it gets
a lower score??
Madden 2002 (EA) - PS2 9.2, XBOX 8.6 - Reviewer says XBOX version is a
"carbon copy" of the PS2 version, though reviewer claims the XBOX
graphics are slightly better, yet again it gets a lower score.
NHL 2002 (EA) - PS2 8.9, XBOX 8.7 - Again, reviewer says XBOX version
is identical, but sports slightly better graphics, and it receives a
lower score.
MX 2002 (THQ) - PS2 7.6, XBOX 7.1 - Reviewer claims XBOX version has
new features and slightly better graphics and controls identically,
yet XBOX version gets a lower score.
I could keep going, but I think I've proved my point. If Gamespot
chooses to be a multi-platform site, I think it is only fair that if a
game is better on one platform, it should score higher than on other
platforms. In other words, it appears Gamespot is penalizing XBOX
games for not being head-and-shoulders better than PS2 counterparts,
which simply isn't fair. Why? Because PS2 and XBOX are both
current next-generation consoles, and PS2 should therefore be subject
to the same rule as XBOX, even if the console isn't as powerful.
Anyway, I hope the PS2 score inflation (or XBOX deflation) stops at
Gamespot.com, because otherwise Gamespot is a great site.
Klik om te vergroten...
