How the hell did Bioshock get a lower score for PS3?

[ThePhantomOak]

IGN gave Bioshock a 9.4 and it was a 9.7UK 9.5US for the other joint...


That is an OUTRAGE!

There is no point in listing why, as everyone here knows that there is no way the PS3 Bioshock would be rated less.

[silversnake]

Originally Posted by ThePhantomOak

IGN gave Bioshock a 9.4 and it was a 9.7UK 9.5US for the other joint...


That is an OUTRAGE!

There is no point in listing why, as everyone here knows that there is no way the PS3 Bioshock would be rated less.

just post in the bioshock thread. I"m not disappointed, 9.4 is a solid score. Look what IGN said in their reviews

Graphics
A mix of old and new textures, combined with old glitches and slowdown that should've been fixed in a year's worth of extra development holds this game back slightly.

Unacceptable. You have a year to port a game , there were problems and glitches that i'm sure they were aware of and didn't go back and fix them. The incident with the demo confirms this as well. I think for this reason alone it received lower. It makes total sense IMO.

(i'm still getting this day one)

[ThePhantomOak]

Originally Posted by silversnake

just post in the bioshock thread. I"m not disappointed, 9.4 is a solid score. Look what IGN said in their reviews

Graphics
A mix of old and new textures, combined with old glitches and slowdown that should've been fixed in a year's worth of extra development holds this game back slightly.

Unacceptable. You have a year to port a game , there were problems and glitches that i'm sure they were aware of and didn't go back and fix them. The incident with the demo confirms this as well. I think for this reason alone it received lower. It makes total sense IMO.

(i'm still getting this day one)

1. PS3 got a lower score because it has the same problems that the 360 had? REALLY? The game was in development at least a year with the 360 and it had the bugs... but they gave it a higher score?

2. 9.4 is a great score and I was excited to see it, BUT the fact is that they gave it a lower score than the 360 because it had the same problems. REALLY? Because porting a game is somehow the same as debugging? If the problem is the code, it should have showed up in the original review score. Period.

3. I posted a new thread because this merge EVERYTHING that has anything to do with XXXXX game is rediculous. How is the actual games review related to the Demo? It is not, and should not be merged to foul up the flow of that thread.

[silversnake]

Originally Posted by ThePhantomOak

1. PS3 got a lower score because it has the same problems that the 360 had? REALLY? The game was in development at least a year with the 360 and it had the bugs... but they gave it a higher score?

2. 9.4 is a great score and I was excited to see it, BUT the fact is that they gave it a lower score than the 360 because it had the same problems. REALLY? Because porting a game is somehow the same as debugging? If the problem is the code, it should have showed up in the original review score. Period.

3. I posted a new thread because this merge EVERYTHING that has anything to do with XXXXX game is rediculous. How is the actual games review related to the Demo? It is not, and should not be merged to foul up the flow of that thread.

1. Yes, they had a year to fix it. No excuse in my opinion. Maybe the original reviewer game the score too high than.

2. They had a whole year , again, to fix it. Everyone said this would be the "ultimate" bioshock experience and if it has the same problems as the 360 it's not the ultimate experience now is it. And the expantion that makes it a newer experience for some people, isn't even available at launch.

3. That thread is the Bioshock thread and everything related to bioshock should be in that thread if not , you have a bunch of threads related to the same thing all over the forums. That thread isn't the demo thread, it's the bioshock thread with a modified title. If you go on the sticky that says Popular Game / Useful thread and click on bioshock it takes you to that thread.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by silversnake

1. Yes, they had a year to fix it. No excuse in my opinion. Maybe the original reviewer game the score too high than.

That seems to be the problem with reviews for the other console.

2. They had a whole year , again, to fix it. Everyone said this would be the "ultimate" bioshock experience and if it has the same problems as the 360 it's not the ultimate experience now is it. And the expantion that makes it a newer experience for some people, isn't even available at launch.

The newer textures would be bonuses. The new added functionality is a plus. Even if the rest was exactly the same as the X360 version, that would STILL make it the ultimate experience.

3. That thread is the Bioshock thread and everything related to bioshock should be in that thread if not , you have a bunch of threads related to the same thing all over the forums. That thread isn't the demo thread, it's the bioshock thread with a modified title. If you go on the sticky that says Popular Game / Useful thread and click on bioshock it takes you to that thread.

I agree with this one.

[aphex]

It doesn't matter if glitches weren't fixed.
If it's the same experience as the 360 version then it should receive the same score. It's pretty stupid. Yes they should've fixed the glitches/etc. but that doesn't make it a worse game than before. However the lower score would indicate that.

[Euribo]

I feel a lot of these game review sites are biased towards the Xbox, so they rate the same game lower on the PS3, to make some people think everything is better on the 360, therefore you should get a 360.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by lbloodojunkieg

I feel a lot of these game review sites are biased towards the Xbox, so they rate the same game lower on the PS3, to make some people think everything is better on the 360, therefore you should get a 360.

unfortunately i think you got it because most reviewers are a lot of Xbox fanboys and its kind of annoying to be honest i am just suprised it even got a 9.4 for a PS3 game with these reviewers but i guess its because Bioshock is just that great of a game that it should never get a rating below a 9.0

[Lepidopterous]

If they set a standard with the 360 version for this game, and do not surpass it with an entire year to port it, I don't think it should have the same score either. Scoring should naturally be tougher as expectations rise year after year anyway.

[silversnake]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

If they set a standard with the 360 version for this game, and do not surpass it with an entire year to port it, I don't think it should have the same score either. Scoring should naturally be tougher as expectations rise year after year anyway.

Thank you Couldn't have said it better myself.

Eurogamer gives Bioshock 10/10

Everyone happy?

[Marquoz]

I agree with the lower score. If it had been technically better, then the score should have been higher, but since they ignored the known problems, the lower score is a justified knock against the programming team. While porting it, there is a lot of work involved, and it shouldn't be that hard to go ahead and knock out a few of the bugs while they are at it. That's the difference between producing a GOOD game, and just porting junk to make money.

[silversnake]

Originally Posted by Marquoz

I agree with the lower score. If it had been technically better, then the score should have been higher, but since they ignored the known problems, the lower score is a justified knock against the programming team. While porting it, there is a lot of work involved, and it shouldn't be that hard to go ahead and knock out a few of the bugs while they are at it. That's the difference between producing a GOOD game, and just porting junk to make money.

Definitely not a junk port . It just has the same problems the 360 had. Big difference between the bioshock port and let's say , the orange box port

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by silversnake

Definitely not a junk port . It just has the same problems the 360 had. Big difference between the bioshock port and let's say , the orange box port

It shouldn't have the same problems though, they should have fixed them up as they were porting like was done with Alone in the Dark.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

If they set a standard with the 360 version for this game, and do not surpass it with an entire year to port it, I don't think it should have the same score either. Scoring should naturally be tougher as expectations rise year after year anyway.

Ummm...but they DID surpass it! HIGHER rez textures mean it SURPASSED the original. MORE content means it SURPASSED the original. SOME of the bugs from the original were fixed. That means it SURPASSED the original.

Even if that wasn't the case, should a test be hard the year after someone else takes it? Would you consider THAT fair? I bet almost no one would.

Originally Posted by silversnake

Thank you Couldn't have said it better myself.

Eurogamer gives Bioshock 10/10

Everyone happy?

I'm not happy 'cause this should have helped the overall PS3 version rating be even higher than it is now.

[Havok83]

what does it matter? Its not like its a full point lower. Old games should not be expected to get the same score a year after original release. Expectations change as does the market around it. Bioshock isnt as impressive now as it was last year

[Ascended_Saiyan]

It adds up. It's a BETTER game than the original. That doesn't deserve a LOWER score. You KNOW it isn't just year old ports either. If they think it's acceptable behavior, why would they stop? These "get to the back of the bus" type reviews need to stop...period.

[Terjyn]

It also matters because it adds fuel to the "cross platform is always better on 360" claim that people constantly use.

Oblivion is the same way. The fact that the vastly superior PS3 version has lower scores is ridiculous, year later or no.

[krazeyeyez]

[air_max]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

Ummm...but they DID surpass it! HIGHER rez textures mean it SURPASSED the original. MORE content means it SURPASSED the original. SOME of the bugs from the original were fixed. That means it SURPASSED the original.

Even if that wasn't the case, should a test be hard the year after someone else takes it? Would you consider THAT fair? I bet almost no one would.


I'm not happy 'cause this should have helped the overall PS3 version rating be even higher than it is now.

Really, the only thing that the PS3 version has right now that the 360 version did not is the Survivor mode. Yes, there are more plasmids when you compare the original 360 release, but even so, when in the past has downloadable or add-on content raised the score of any game? The review talks specifically about the framerate and slowdown issues that greatly hinder the gameplay experience. Its like getting busted for stealing a cookie twice. The first time mommy slaps you on the wrist and says no-no, the second time you get a time-out because you knew the standard, and still broke the rules. I don't really blame 2k though because they knew this game would sell regardless so why put in extra time and money.

And your test analogy doesn't work because we are aware of Bioshock and it's few nit-picky issues. The test SHOULD be harder a second time around. Its why quizes are easier than tests, why tests are easier than final exams. Except in this poor analogy, we are taking the whole flippin class again! Imagine how much harder the professor/teacher will make the tests if he/she knows we already took the class.

But really, we shouldn't be having this much discourse over it because it is just a review. Honestly, we look WAAAY too much into things like this. The only thing its good for is more fuel for the fan-boy weenie measuring contest.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by air_max

Really, the only thing that the PS3 version has right now that the 360 version did not is the Survivor mode. Yes, there are more plasmids when you compare the original 360 release, but even so, when in the past has downloadable or add-on content raised the score of any game?

The entire reason people gave for giving Oblivion a lower score on PS3 in spite of it being a better game is because the "DLC potential was less".