• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Do you think the platform a game comes out affects its actual review scores and general consensus around it?

Do you think the actual platform a game comes out affects its actual score and general consensus?

  • Yes, the platform HIGHLY affects a game score/reviews/general consensus

  • Yes, but just SLIGHTY affects a game score/reviews/general consensus

  • No, NOT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, the platform does not affect a game score/reviews/general consensus

  • No, the platform does not affect a game score/reviews/general consensus AT ALL


Results are only viewable after voting.

.Pennywise

Member
NOT A PLATFORM WARRING THREAD

Again, not a platform warring thread. But a thread on game scores, reviews, consensus, etc, around them and how they are (or not) actually tied to its platform.

For example, a game of the past generation was more likely to get better reviews on PlayStation 4, rather than games on Xbox One or Wii U, due to playerbase installment. Alas, a game that releases for consoles and PC might be more well receieved by the general consensus, rather than games that are VR exclusives.
Or games that would get beat down if they present bad performance on PC/PS/XBOX, but isn't the case in Nintendo Switch due to its hardware constraints.
This also affects not only hardware but digital platforms. Just as Epic not having a review system like Steam. Or being available on subscription services like Game Pass in release day.
Etc, etc.
 

Zeroing

Gold Member
In a perfect world, everyone would be unbiased and follow a universal step by step sheet on how to review a game. What do you want me say? Isn’t it obvious? Each person has personal experiences and tastes that also influence scores that is why metacritic and opencritic exists - sum of everyone experiences and opinions.
 

Chukhopops

Member
I think Golden Sun got handled with kid gloves because it was the first original JRPG for Gameboy Advance. If the same exact game came out on PlayStation a few years earlier it would’ve been judged far more harshly.
Well the GBA was a handheld, of course expectations would be different compared to a home console - there wouldn’t even be a Sony handheld until 4 years later.

To answer the topic’s question, I would say no. Some sites tend to push some brands higher in their reviews (especially if they are dedicated to it) but that’s not the same thing.
 
No. Of course not.

It's just certain fans who think each platform should be entitled to an equal number of highly rated games, otherwise it must be some sort of media conspiracy.

Let's face it certain publishers have a higher standard other quality than others and those publishers might not be making games for all platforms.
 
I do.

I think a lot of websites continually overrate Nintendo first party games and I think Sony is given some extra points as well but not nearly the benefit of the doubt given to Nintendo.
 

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
Of course the platform affects the score. Each platform as its own expectations based on the power and features of that platform.

A 720 game on the switch is probably expected. A 720 game on a Ps5 probably wouldn't be as appreciated.
 

Stuart360

Gold Member
Yes 100%. When you can start predicting scores, with a high level of accuracy, for certain games on certain systems, then you know whats going on.

Thats why i only really listen to independant people like ACG, and people on here, Steam, etc. I think places like MC are ok for using as guidance, in the sense of if a game gts a MC core of 40 form like 80 review sites, then its pretty certain that said game sucks balls. Thats as far as it goes for me though with corporate sponsored review sites.
 

GHound

Member
Absolutely and it's done both directions for every platform to greater or lesser degrees. Scores are determined by human beings, not robots. This was always going to be a problem the instant platform tribalism and fanaticism started to become a thing. 🤷‍♂️
 
Player base numbers shouldn't affect the game score, but bad performance could. If one version's lesser performance affects your enjoyment of the game, then I wouldn't argue with you if you gave it a lesser score. It's your experience, or the reviewers experience after all. I just personally don't get how or why you would be affected by the install base of a platform. Maybe I don't get it cause it doesn't matter to me? idk.
 
Last edited:

ACESHIGH

Member
Of course. A Nintendo first party Zelda or Mario/Mario Kart has to cause pokemon style seizures to the reviewer in order to have a rating below 90.

Quantum Break/ Sunset Overdrive/Killer instinct would have received better ratings if they weren't released as Xbox exclusives. Remedy's next game Control got better ratings despite being a worse game than QB. Remember that during 2014 through 2017 the Xbox was the cool to hate console by gaming media in general

Sonic all stars racing transformed and CTR are superior Kart games that Mario kart but get lower scores just for being multiplat.

In a nutshell the favorable bias pecking order would be:

Nintendo exclusive (max positive bias)
Playstation exclusive
Playstation/PC
Multiplat (neutral bias)
PC
Xbox/PC
Xbox exclusive (max negative bias)
 
Last edited:

Arthimura

Member
I would say:

PlayStations games reviews are more or less balanced. Some games get more praise than it deserves, some get less, but on average reviews are fair.

Nintendo games get higher scores than it usually deserves because of Nintendo name. Some flagships automatically launches as a 10/10 game.

Xbox games get lower scores than it usually deserves. Gaming media and community still has some bias against Microsoft, probably because of the bad PR of Xbox One launch, but they're doing consistent work for some years now.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Oh 100%
If gt7 came out on xbox, it would be highly praised.
Forza got all the same mistakes. Plenty of microtransactions, always online and so on.
Bruhh GIF by reactionseditor

- GT7 microtransactions weren't even activated during reviews so how could they impact the "praise" it got in reviews?
- You can play Forza Horizon single player offline;
- The last Forza game with MTX comparable to GT7 (credits for real money) was in 2015 (FM6);
- The most expensive FM6 car in the game back when MTX was added would cost 20 GBP according to this link below.

As a conclusion: 0/10

 

rofif

Gold Member
Bruhh GIF by reactionseditor

- GT7 microtransactions weren't even activated during reviews so how could they impact the "praise" it got in reviews?
- You can play Forza Horizon single player offline;
- The last Forza game with MTX comparable to GT7 (credits for real money) was in 2015 (FM6);
- The most expensive FM6 car in the game back when MTX was added would cost 20 GBP according to this link below.

As a conclusion: 0/10

So many cars are locked behind packs in forza but ok - maybe it's cheaper.
-I was under the impression it is not playable off-line. My bad
Both games reviewed good but one got lashed on later by everyone compared to another. I am not saying it does not deserve it. It surely does. But if it was more fair, Horizon should get some too.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

Member
Yes. Just look at Hellblade’s Xbox review score.

Not the only example. Switch games won’t be marked down due to graphics whereas the PS5 and Series X probably would be.

Some publishers threaten to blacklist companies if they don’t like reviews, which will also impact review scores.

I think a lot of Sony games are top class, but I think a lot of them are also boosted by review companies who don’t want to be ‘the guy who goes against Sony’. Looking at GoT as an example, initially released to an 83 score but good fan acclaim, low and behold the reviewers all boosted their scores for the PS5 re-release - almost as if the review companies didn’t want to go against user opinion. I also think TLOU 2 rode the coattails of ND’s previous work, with no reviewer wanting to call out the poor writing and shoddy execution of certain plot points.
 

6502

Member
Yes. And in circumstances it is perfectly valid. Part of a review should take into context peers in the genre and availability.

For instance, the only mediocre racing game may score higher for a platform than it would on one with many racing games (but I wouldnt expect it to score higher or make out it is superior to vastly better games in the genre); also use of the hardware must be a factor.

COD MW wii was a fantastic game and achievement but clearly would have scored lower on ps3/360 if it came out in an identical state on those platforms.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Gold Member
So many cars are locked behind packs in forza but ok - maybe it's cheaper.
-I was under the impression it is not playable off-line. My bad
Both games reviewed good but one got lashed on later by everyone compared to another. I am not saying it does not deserve it. It surely does. But if it was more fair, Horizon should get some too.

But GT7's MTX wasn't even factored in for the reviews, it went live later.

Your comparison makes no sense in the context of how it would have been reviewed on other platforms lol.

-

On topic: Ideally, no it shouldn't.

But I won't say it doesn't. Platform exclusive sites like Pure Xbox or PSU probably give exclusives more favorable reviews all the time.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Depends on the website doing the review. Some of those smaller system focused ones are smoking crack.
 

PhaseJump

Gold Member
I think Golden Sun got handled with kid gloves because it was the first original JRPG for Gameboy Advance. If the same exact game came out on PlayStation a few years earlier it would’ve been judged far more harshly.

I think it would have just been a legendary Shining game on Sega hardware, or a PS1 Beyond the Beyond follow-up that got praises for fixing absolutely everything wrong with the first one, and be hyped as a reason for PS gamers to moon their asses at Saturn fans.
 

nush

Member
Sure, happens all the time. Just look back at all those Dreamcast games that got marked down just because they were not online. But the same game on another format that also wasn't online would not get penalized. Early Neo Geo AES games that got savagely marked down because of the cost of the cartridges. Any big console game ported to mobile well will get marked up, just becuse it's a mobile. That shouldn't be anything special now due to the power of modern mobiles, those smartphones are still being compared to old underpowered handheld gaming systems of old with that mindset.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
Yea, look at something like the WiiU.

3rd party games largely received negative coverage and then the reviewers couldn't even bother to do a review, they'd just link to the PS3/360 review.

I think that's fair to a point, you don't need to play the same game for dozens of hours but the negativity surrounding most 3rd party releases, unique to the WiiU, was uncalled for. It was just dog piling. To me it's like, no shit they're old games, it's the effing WiiU, lol. You think a studio is gonna make Mass Effect 4 for it, or Arkham City 2? lol.

On the flip side, the Wii got so many passes. Lost Winds for instance, game was mediocre at best with awful controls but Matt C and others at IGN praised it to high heavens cause it was an actual 'game' on the Wii eShop and tried to implement motion controls that weren't waggle. SH: Shattered Memories comes to mind as well. I get it, they wanted the games to be successful so others would make more meaningful games for the platform but still, they'd never admit that cause it'd call into question every review they've ever written.

There's even documented evidence of it from some old magazine. Some Street Fighter game on the Saturn getting a lower score than the PSX version but everyone knows the Saturn was king when it came to 2D fighters.

It is what it is. I don't trust reviewers, I think they're a total negative when it comes to the gaming community and gaming as a whole. I don't think they're all bad or have insidious intentions, but I think gaming reviews are misleading at best. You'd have to assume that everyone has played the same games as you and experience them in the same way. Unless a game is outright broken, there will generally be an audience who adore it, regardless of the score. Having someone potentially limit the audience of a game because something doesn't stack up to something else you've played, that other people maybe haven't, it's all just misleading to me and doesn't do anyone any favors. I also hate the fact that so many of them get free shit and just dog pile certain games for clicks. Fuck em.
 
Last edited:

BigBooper

Gold Member
Yea, some places are more sympathetic to one console or the other and give them more praise in reviews or dismiss concerns more easily. Hard to say what the overall effect is.
 
Good question. Let's take a look at a couple examples and see if there's a trend.

Average Overall Scores from games listed below:
PC: 85.5/PS5: 84.6/Switch: 86.4/Xbox SX: 87.9


Results pulled from Metacritic.com. Game had to be released on PC, PS5, Switch, and Xbox SX. In a few cases, I had to average the reviews that Metacritic did have since they didn't have the 4 required for an "official" Metacritic score. If I had time and API knowledge, I'd try and figure out a better way of scraping an entire data set instead of just the first 10 I could find.

HADES (No differences)
PC: 93/PS5 : 93/Switch: 93/XBOX ONE X: 93

OLLIOLLI WORLD (Winners = Switch/PC)
PC: 87/PS5: 84/Switch: 87/Xbox SX: 85

LEGO STAR WARS: SKYWALKER SAGA (Winner = PS5)
PC: 77/PS5: 83/Switch: 81/Xbox SX: 81

DEATH'S DOOR (Winner = Switch)
PC: 85/PS5: 83/Switch: 89/Xbox SX: 87

QUAKE REMASTERED (Winner = Switch)
PC: 81/PS5: 80/Switch: 87/Xbox SX: 85

OVERCOOKED! ALL YOU CAN EAT (Winner = Xbox SX)
PC: 80/PS5: 84/Switch: 87/Xbox SX: 90

DISCO ELYSIUM: THE FINAL CUT (Winner = Xbox SX)
PC: 97/PS5: 89/Switch: 86/Xbox SX: 92

TONY HAWK'S 1+2 (Winner = PS5)
PC: 88/PS5: 90/Switch: 85/Xbox SX: 89

DOKI DOKI LITERATURE CLUB PLUS! (Winner = Xbox SX)
PC: 81/PS5: 80/Switch: 85: Xbox SX: 89

ENDER LILLIES: QUIETUS OF THE KNIGHTS (Winner = Xbox SX)
PC: 86/PS5: 80/Switch: 84/Xbox SX: 88
 
Last edited:

01011001

Gold Member
Oh 100%
If gt7 came out on xbox, it would be highly praised.
Forza got all the same mistakes. Plenty of microtransactions, always online and so on.

wow, you are either deliberately lying or are misinformed...

1: Forza Horizon 4/5 have no Microtransactions. Motorsport 6 had microtransactions. they removed the majority of them after the backlash they got, and since took them out of the series completely.

2: neither of them are always online, in fact, Horizon 4 and 5 have specialized offline modes to give the player the seasonal changes even without the synchronized online Seasons system. so not only can you play them offline, they are even especially optimized for offline play in order to keep most of the features intact

3: none of them ever had the ability to buy in-game currency, which directly influences in-game pricing of cars and is the reason the Always Online restriction exists in GT7

GT7 got the shitstorm it got because 1: the game was unplayable for 30 hours due to the online DRM and 2: because they decreased credit earnings while also selling credits for real money.
You can't compare any of that to the lootboxes FM6 sold, while that game never got the credit earnings nerfed either.... if you are trying to do that
 
Last edited:
I think Golden Sun got handled with kid gloves because it was the first original JRPG for Gameboy Advance. If the same exact game came out on PlayStation a few years earlier it would’ve been judged far more harshly.
I think Golden Sun is a good example, but probably not for the same reasons as you. First of all, Golden Sun was a big sales success for the GBA and Nintendo, and I do think is in fact largely due to timing, and the game being a graphical showcase for the brand new Game Boy. Game Boy Advance was basically seen as a handheld SNES by the gaming savvy adults, so it makes sense Golden Sun appealed to those nostalgic senses that remembered the days of Chrono Trigger and reviewed it favorably for harkening back to those times. Plus, I do think Golden Sun was a very solid game, made way better by it's sequel, the Lost Age. It's issues were the endless dag on talking/speech bubbles. The djinn system was great, and I wish the game had a difficulty balanced for us to dig into that system more and not simply exploit the summons.

But anyway, before Golden Sun, Camelot made a game called "Beyond the Beyond." It was Camelot's Playstation JRPG game, and it did not review favorably. Also, Golden Sun was originally being planned for release on the N64, but those plans changed. Any other platform other than the GBA could have written that series' history differently. The game being on GBA gave it access to a young and impressionable audience (example: ME) and won it favorable points with the older crowd of those times who recalled and loved the old SNES RPG titles.
 

Closer

Member
I really think Sony and Nintendo gets higher scores because of their fanbase. Most games are OK to good, but when something bad is getting high scores, it's usually on Sony's side. Nintendo gets the inflated user scores tho. Imo.
 
Last edited:

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Yes , it’s always been that way. While it won’t make a bad game get better scores it will make a good game have bigger hype and this affects reviewers preconceived hype going into it.
 
Last edited:
I think Golden Sun is a good example, but probably not for the same reasons as you. First of all, Golden Sun was a big sales success for the GBA and Nintendo, and I do think is in fact largely due to timing, and the game being a graphical showcase for the brand new Game Boy. Game Boy Advance was basically seen as a handheld SNES by the gaming savvy adults, so it makes sense Golden Sun appealed to those nostalgic senses that remembered the days of Chrono Trigger and reviewed it favorably for harkening back to those times. Plus, I do think Golden Sun was a very solid game, made way better by it's sequel, the Lost Age. It's issues were the endless dag on talking/speech bubbles. The djinn system was great, and I wish the game had a difficulty balanced for us to dig into that system more and not simply exploit the summons.

But anyway, before Golden Sun, Camelot made a game called "Beyond the Beyond." It was Camelot's Playstation JRPG game, and it did not review favorably. Also, Golden Sun was originally being planned for release on the N64, but those plans changed. Any other platform other than the GBA could have written that series' history differently. The game being on GBA gave it access to a young and impressionable audience (example: ME) and won it favorable points with the older crowd of those times who recalled and loved the old SNES RPG titles.
It seems like all the Golden Sun fans I knew were “Nintendo only” people who skipped over the PS1 for whatever reason.

For me, games like Xenogears, FF9, Persona 2, Skies of Arcadia, Chrono Cross, Grandia 1&2, etc were fresh in my mind. Golden Sun just seemed… bland in comparison.

It definitely was a spiritual sequel to Beyond the Beyond. Both were remarkable for being the first original JRPG on a new system. And both did that same “important character goes missing/presumed dead… and on an unrelated note, who’s this mysterious masked stranger that just started showing up?” plot twist.
 

Warablo

Member
Sony games get boosted scores but their games are still very good.

When people were talking about negative TLOU review bombs, I am sure there were just as many 10/10 perfect review bombs.
 
Top Bottom