In that time we've seen many releases with massive technical differences that impact the gameplay experience, and we've waded through hundreds of titles where one platform may have marginal technical advantages over the other. I just don't understand how this idea has persisted over the years despite the evidence to the contrary.We've been producing Face-Off features for almost four years now. Yet despite what the vast majority of reviewers are telling us over and over again, that the PS3 is most certainly not getting the short end of the stick overall, there is still a segment of the gaming community that choses to ignore hundreds of professional reviewers opinions in favor of sites run by 3 or 4, twenty somethings that talk about differences so unnoticeable that the average gamer doesn't have a hope in hell of ever verifying if what these people are saying is actually true - and ignoring the fact that they only do these comparisons on a handful of multiplats released each year.

Occasionally we had games with noticeable differences, like Final Fantasy or Bayonetta, but these games were few and far between. In 2009, things shifted with the majority of multiplats scoring the same or higher on the PS3.ĭuring this time we had sites like Eurogamer and Lens of Truth running comparisons of a fraction of games and for most of their comparisons we simply had to take them at their word because the changes they were talking about were mostly imperceivable unless hooked up and run through special software. In 2008 things started to even out and when we looked at average scores, multiplats on the PS3 and 360 pretty much tied. What is this even based on?īack in 2007, the majority of reviewers agreed, multiplat games were better on the 360. It's funny that the myth of PS3 being weaker on multiplats still exists after all these years.

Dead space 2 ps3 vs xbox 360