GRAW 2.

Its hard to believe that a port from a 7-month old game is the highest rated for the Playstation 3. Who would've thought that even 3 months ago. Just look at some of the titles its beating out...

link (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/default_PS3/1028)

RECENT TOP GAMES FOR THE PS3

GRAW 2 PS3 88.5%
Ninja Gaiden Sigma PS3 86.7%
Warhawk PS3 84.1%
Madden NFL 08 PS3 82.2%
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 PS3 80.7%
Heavenly Sword PS3 80.7%
All-Pro Football 2K8 PS3 74.7%

Its interesting, but really I havent been impressed with the inconsistency of a lot of the reviewers from websites like Gamespot and IGN....

It seems like a 5-6 hour game is only okay if it has multiplayer, a game that isnt designed to have a single player campaign is punished because its a multiplayer only game...

The scores are so inconsistent and do not reflect the actual quality of the game so much so that anymore reviews are just a waste of time.

A good game is a good game. I don't see how it matters how long ago it first came out. Besides, on the main sites that's not the case.

Games rated equal to or higher than GRAW 2:

IGN
Tiger Woods 08
Super Puzzle Fighter II
Warhawk
Dirt
Skate
NHL 08
Sega Rally

GameSpot
Warhawk
NHL 08
Dirt

1Up
Madden 08
Warhawk
Heavenly Sword
Skate
NHL 08


That's just recent games. Obviously there are older games rated higher as well. It is kind of odd GRAW 2's average is so high. It must have some really high scores from smaller websites.

i agree. an online only game is praised if it comes on pc, but not on the ps3.
a single player is prasied on the wii, but not on the ps3.

but, it comes down to if i enjoy the game.

GRAW 2.

Its hard to believe that a port from a 7-month old game is the highest rated for the Playstation 3. Who would've thought that even 3 months ago. Just look at some of the titles its beating out...

Huh, not to say GRAW 2 isn't a good title but IMO I thought it to be just an above average game, nothing groundbreaking, solid but not top of the pile.

As the previous post stated, there are plenty of titles that scored at or above GRAW 2 - again not knocking the game, just referencing to your interesting statement.:rolleyes:

you also have to consider the amount of reviews for each game... some of the PS3's exclusives have considerably more reviews on GR than GRAW2. and review scores are completely subjective.

Huh, not to say GRAW 2 isn't a good title but IMO I thought it to be just an above average game, nothing groundbreaking, solid but not top of the pile.

As the previous post stated, there are plenty of titles that scored at or above GRAW 2 - again not knocking the game, just referencing to your interesting statement.:rolleyes:

I was very apprehensive on GRAW the first time I played as well. I was underwhelmed by everything but the explosions. But the fact is, for me anyway, it's by far the most intense game I have ever played online. Also the most cooperative game I've come across, too. You'd be surprised how much people want to talk when 2 bullets will take them out...LOL.

GRAW 2 is a AAA game by almost anyone's standars. Offers more than most games for any system.

I was all over Graw2 for several months. It was pretty solid.

GRAW2 and Vegas offer something that few games offer today: replayability and length.

Multiplayer terrorist hunts, single player co-op (Vegas), co-op or death match multiplayer, etc, etc....all equals value for dollar.

They also work well..some people can't get iinto GRAW's pacing or the way its played....Vegas is a more traditional FPS and easier to get into.

If you go by Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/), then NHL '08 and Rainbow Six: Vegas are recent games that are rated higher than GRAW2.

- Jer

The real problem is this is exactly how the general public views games on the PS3. Its not just game ranking sites.

Absolute PS3 purists will tell you there are plenty of great games.

Everybody will tell you the game library is still very much lacking and still the weakest of the 3 new consoles.



How many times a day do you hear the PS3 has no good games being echo'ed.



What surprises me most is that Resistance isnt the absolute top rated game. And that Motorstorm isnt even on the list. From what I hear of PS3 owners.. those are the two must have PS3 games.

GRAW 2 is IMO the best online game for the 360, well worth the purchase on either system. I wish it had dedicated servers like Warhawk, Resistance and Motorstorm I haven't double dipped for the PS3 version but may some day. I've been too busy playing Warhawk (32 players lag free :D) which is fantastic!


I'm definitely looking forward to GRAW 3 whenever that hits. Heck, GRAW (1) is what made the 360 worth buying, picked that up and a blind buy of ES:IV (never finished).

I still havent bought anything besides RFOM(when i bought the ps3 in dec. 06) and madden 07/08. Anyone got any good reccomendations for me? My favorite games in times past have been resident evil/silent hill/metal gear style games.

Show of hands:

Who else knew Brian was going to gripe about dedicated servers before even reading his post? :eek:

Frank, Daekwan, HeadRusch...I know you guys saw that coming. :p

And wanting and improvement for one of my favorite games is a bad thing in your mind?

edit: For me the online gaming experiences have been significantly better with dedicated servers. 32 players, 40 players lag free consistantly versus not nearly as many players with lag. GRAW 2, 3 on dedicated servers would be awesome in my mind. That is the biggest drawback to the series.

Sorry brian, you took that wrong. I just thought it was funny that I know your pet peeves, and figured those guys I mentioned that have been around here for a while and "know" you also realize how you feel about the dedicated servers or lack thereof. No harm meant.

I also know that you're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. :D

Once you've tasted the best, it is hard to go back that is all ;) Probably true with Cocoa Puffs as well, lol

Show of hands:

Who else knew Brian was going to gripe about dedicated servers before even reading his post? :eek:

Frank, Daekwan, HeadRusch...I know you guys saw that coming. :p

Brian clearly has his bias.. but we all do.. and most of the time people make good points. I agree with him, personally I would love dedicated servers on every game.

But I know those servers cost money.. and somebody has to pay for them. What happens when the money isnt there, the server support slips, problems take forever to get fixed and gameplay is generally ruined because they depend on dedicated servers that need to running 24/7. Thats my main gripe about the 'free' model online services.

I'd rather pay and always play.

Of course I have bias. Having tasted both my bias is towards the better gaming experience. Sure it may go away one day, chances are I'll be on to another game by then anyways. In short I'm not worried about whatever year they may close down the Warhawk servers. If they charged for the experience I'd be willing to pay for them, but they don't charge and I still get a great experience.

You can do a poll and ask who is worried about the Warhawk servers being shut down. I'd love to see the results from PS3 owners.

Resistance is a great game. I look forward to ratchet as well. Insomniac is a good company. Motorstorm is not that good and doesn't have split screen multi player.

GRAW 2 is IMO the best online game for the 360, well worth the purchase on either system. I wish it had dedicated servers like Warhawk, Resistance and Motorstorm I haven't double dipped for the PS3 version but may some day. I've been too busy playing Warhawk (32 players lag free :D) which is fantastic!


I'm definitely looking forward to GRAW 3 whenever that hits. Heck, GRAW (1) is what made the 360 worth buying, picked that up and a blind buy of ES:IV (never finished).

Of course I have bias. Having tasted both my bias is towards the better gaming experience. Sure it may go away one day, chances are I'll be on to another game by then anyways. In short I'm not worried about whatever year they may close down the Warhawk servers. If they charged for the experience I'd be willing to pay for them, but they don't charge and I still get a great experience.

You can do a poll and ask who is worried about the Warhawk servers being shut down. I'd love to see the results from PS3 owners.

Thats the thing though Brian. I appreciate people who have a bias, and are honest about it. I hate the word fanboy. Because you know what.. as much money as we ALL spend on this shyt. We SHOULD be a fan of the product, the technology, and the system we support most.

I doubt if anybody is worried about the Warhawk servers being shutdown. After all the game is only a couple of months old.. and I guess there have never been more than 100k people playing Warhawk at the same time.

But I prefer the pay model I subscribe to on that other system.. they may not have dedicated servers.. but I know if I put in my almost 4 year old console enabled online-game.. there will still be a working, guaranteed online system to support it. Not only is it working 4 years later, but it has always worked, always connected, always kept my rank/status/stats intact.

Changing to ALL dedicated servers would make that alot complicated. Especially when you are talking about 7 million unique users. And just a week ago.. over 1 million people playing the same game at the same time on the same day.

How easily would that go over on a network made of pure dedicated servers?

Dedicated servers are fine but if a user connecting to the server is lagging this will effect the game play in the same fashion as if you're hosting and people connecting to you are lagging. If you need to have a lot of people on at one time then you need dedicated servers since the work load will be higher for all the processing.

Asking for GRAW2 dedicated server when it's only 16players max is a bit of overkill. Given that netcode is written well, console hosting should suffice.

Dedicated servers aren't the end of lag as EA has clearly demonstrated!

In an ideal world it would be nice. Stats get reset (GRAW1 and 2 on paid live account for example) on both systems regardless of one being paid, just the nature of the beast.

We simply have different priorities. My 1st priority is the gameplay experience and a dedicated server is simply far superior for online gaming from my console gaming experiences. If I happen to lose stats or ranked reset (which happened more than a couple of times on my paid service with Live) I really don't care though some friends of mine were dissappointed but nothing to go ape over. Same goes with always being able to connect, that simply hasn't happened on Live or the PSN, sure an ideal world issues would never arise but that isn't the case.


100 thousand or 100 million online really doesn't effect me as I'm not making money off the amount of people playing.

As for 4 years from now I doubt I'll be playing Warhawk then anyways based off my gaming habits. Hopefully Warhawk 2 and most likely an entire new batch of online games.

i agree. an online only game is praised if it comes on pc, but not on the ps3.
a single player is prasied on the wii, but not on the ps3.

but, it comes down to if i enjoy the game.

:p
I agree.

What surprises me most is that Resistance isnt the absolute top rated game. And that Motorstorm isnt even on the list. From what I hear of PS3 owners.. those are the two must have PS3 games.
Because the list was for recent PS3 games. If you look at the all-time list on Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/), RFOM comes in 4th and Motorstorm comes in at 8th and 14th (the import version got a separate entry for some reason).

As for the PS3 having the worst catalog of the next-gen consoles, the numbers don't really bear it out. Using Metacritic's listings, the 360 has 8 games with a 90+ score, 67 games with an 80+ score, and 113 games with a 75+ score out of a total of 258 games. The PS3 has 1 game at 90+, 27 games at 80+, and 40 games at 75+ out of 77 games. The Wii has 3 games at 90+, 7 games at 80+, and 14 games at 75+ out of 83 games. If you look at it in terms of percentage of the catalog, the 90+ tier shows the Wii at 4%, 360 at 3%, and PS3 at 1%; the 80+ tier has the PS3 at 35%, the 360 at 26%, and the Wii at 8%; and the 75+ tier has the PS3 at 52%, the 360 at 44%, and the Wii at 17%.

In short, although the Wii has 3 games at 90+, the vast majority of its catalog (83% or 69 games) rates below a 75, while less than half of the PS3's catalog rates that low. If you're counting everything in the good to great range, the Wii has the weakest game selection by far. Meanwhile, the PS3 catalog compares quite favorably to the 360's catalog on a percentage basis, falling short only in the top tier and the overall number of games.

The 360 clearly has the best catalog at the moment, while the Wii has the worst. It'll be interesting to see if that changes over the next year or so.

- Jer

Jer..

Good point. I didnt make sense in my mind why Resistance and Motorstorm werent rated higher, as those games are easily the two most popular and bragged about within PS3 owners. I figured something was wrong with the chart, but didnt understand why.

Your breakdown of the ratings makes much more sense. Because it goes on to consider so many more of the HD games that are multiplatform titles on both the 360 and PS3.

Being an HD game fan.. I would have to admit.. the PS3 catalog interests me much more than the Wii catalog does.

...

Goes along with my playing pretty much. I've got a Wii (bought it for the woman as she loved the DS and she loves the Wii as well, wants to have more Wii party's, lol :o ) but pretty much play it with family and friends. The library just isn't for me for the most part. I prefer the PS3/360 far more. Guess, that goes along with being a home theater nut as well. The Wii is the weakest match for the home theater. I do like some of the games and in the future I'll definitely grab Mario Galaxy and a few others. Just so far haven't found myself playing the Wii alone or desired to do so.

But I know those servers cost money.. and somebody has to pay for them. What happens when the money isnt there, the server support slips, problems take forever to get fixed and gameplay is generally ruined because they depend on dedicated servers that need to running 24/7. Thats my main gripe about the 'free' model online services.

I'd rather pay and always play.




But it doesn't have to be his way. Servers basically act as nodes that relay network information and that's it. What console companies should do it release console, Linux, and windows based dedicated servers clients so that we can run them ourselves on our machines. people who love the game can then keep them running, and they're based on "free" model. Sure the owner pays, but it would provide much better servers around the world, and put the burden of keeping a game popular on the gamers.

Why pay for one company to mandate and have online servers for all the consoles games, when you only play a few.

I really don't see why this hasn't been attempted yet on consoles, as it's been around in the PC universe forever. LAN and client based servers like warhawk are fine, but allow us to setup true dedicated servers running on a Linux box.

Tyrant III

I agree this has been done in the PC world for years. But the problem is PC users are always alot more educated about the workstation/server/network world. THey are usually alot more willing to tweak, hunt, and adjust settings to get things to work.

The 8 year old gaming on XBLive on the other hand.. and the 60 year old Grandparents that bought the game for them.. arent interested in complicated services that take diffferent steps to setup everytime you want to game.. and for every different game you put in. They just want to turn it on, and play against everybody in the world. And not only that.. they want that ADVERTISED to them. How easy it is to do.. or else they arent going to be interested in using it.

If a console maker were to say.. look heres our product.. it can do this online.. but only these guys over here can setup it up.. so you have go here for there directions and settings.. then it gets too complicated.. even it if is free.. and most console people wont buy into it. I know because i've done that before with GameSpy and the original Halo1 just to play online back in 2001.

Complication is the problem with the PC gaming world itself. You have to have the correct OS, correct ram, correct hardware, correct drivers to game. You then need the right servers and settings to get it all working to play online. The complexity turns people away to consoles.

Consoles are the true plug and play of the videogame world. And both Sony and Microsoft know that putting them online should be plug and play too. The eaiser and less complicated they are to use.. the more people are going to use them.. and the more people are going to TALK to other people about wanting to use them..

Take a look in the Warhawk thread. And the discussion of blue servers, red servers, green servers, unranked servers, ranked servers, which servers work today, which servers work on weekends.. (yes.. im exxagerrating.. lol) But you see my point. Even grown azz tech guys here on AVS have to come ask which server does what and why. Thats entirely too complicated for most console gamers.

XBLive is on the other hand.. You turn XBox on.. and its online. It tells you its online, tells you whos online, tells you what game they are playing.. how long they playing it and if you can join them or not for online play. If you do you click one button. And the game starts. Thats it. If you just want to play online.. you click the button for play online.. And the game starts.. thats it.

Either with your buddies or not.. playing online doesnt feel like gaming online.. thats what people like. Playing online just means other people have names over their heads and you can them talking back/forth. It always works, all your stats are always there, all awards/ranks/achievements and so is your buddies.. And most importantly, there is no out-of-order, come back tomorrow sign on the door.

Sure you pay for it.. but in return you get the "so easy even a caveman experience" that always works keeps frustration to minimal.. and fun to the maximum.

And I strongly believe thats why its so popular.. and the greater majority of people dont complain about the $4 bucks a month they pay. Even better they TALK about how great it is.. and the service continues to grow by a million users every year or so. What good is playing online.. if noone else is playing online? Or your friends who also have the same game arent playing online?

The whole point of online play is to have other people to play against. To have your friends online to play against.

What I'm saying is that if lag really was that bad of a problem.. and dedicated servers were the fix.. (which to be honest.. Sorry Brian.. but most people dont complain about lag as much as you do.. even here on AVS..)

Then they could can charge a little bit more (maybe $5 bucks a month) to run dedicated servers and improve the experience for everybody.

And to keep this thread on topic.. in a SONY forum. That I think if Sony were to charge the $4-5 bucks a month to make their online as easy and popular.. then people would pay the $4-5 bucks there too.. for the convience, ease and dependability of online play similar to what LIVE offers.

Not on Warhawk or Resistance they don't, that is true. I already hear people complain during Halo 3 matches online granted not as frequent as complaints during Gears and GRAW or Halo 2. This is being honest without exaggerating to simply slam a game on an opposing console.

edit: Go type "bullet lag" at youtube to find some lovely Gears, Halo videos.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-kd4srElAHc

This comes as no surprise to me, as GRAW2 is really, really good. I just flew through it this weekend after buying it when it launched on 360:) I had enjoyed this more than my Halo 3 single player experience. F***ing awesome game.

I do find it amusing that you are willing to stretch (at least you admit it this time, that is progress) the problems of Warhawk and ignore the issues of any Live issues. Par for the course in your biases and continued anti-PS3 diatribe.

In my opinion.. an online service should prioritize addressing the following technical areas which have been known to cause trouble to online gameplay..

1) First of all it should work. If you want to play online.. and cant get connected at all. Then whats the point? If it consistently takes you 5-10 tries to get in a game.. That shyt gets old quick and as I said before frustration is the opposite of fun.



2) 2nd.. the point of playing online is to play against and beat another human. If stats arent working. If ranks are working. If your hard work to win against someone else isnt getting recorded and rewarded. Then it sucks. How successful would any Sport league be if the Win and Loss records werent kept. That is without a doubt the most important stat. How do you know if the guy you just beat sucks or not?

In shooters.. Why work your way all the way up to a sergeant last weekend to be magically ranked as private tomorrow. Or the opposite.. to start playing your 3rd game ever.. and now be ranked as a Leutinent or whatever.

In a game like the COD4 Multiplayer Beta.. it is EXTREMELY important that your stats and ranks work every game. Why? Because that determines what advanced weapons and perks you get access too.

In other games where rank is for matchmaking purposes only to keep teams even.. and stats simply for bragging rights. Its still important because it directly manage teams and keeps the matches EQUAL and the pairings fair.. What fun is playing online.. if you have 5 newbs with little to no experience getting their azz whipped by 5 guys with weeks/months of game experience.



3) Lag is definitely an issue. I've never said it wasnt. But the problem with lag is it most people dont seem to have a problem with it. Or arent as susceptible to it as you are. But for those that do, is it a problem with the online system or their internet connection and ping times from their ISP? So yeah people out there complain about lag.. but its a lot harder to pinpoint what is causing their lag. Since so many people are NOT complaining about lag.

Someone already said in this thread that even the use of dedicated servers wont completely eliminate lag. So dont expect dedicated servers to be end all answer to the problem. And just important understand underloaded dedicated servers work much better than those with regular and overloads. So the same you game you play now with no lag.. what happens with its 5x as many people the game.. on the same amount of dedicated servers. Server bandwith is just like a highway.. and sooner or later rush hour traffic can be expected.

Ive also heard others complain that the person who hosts the game gets an advantage. And while I can understand that to be technically feasible.. I can tell you from my personal experience I get my azz whipped just as badly as when I'm the host.. as I do when Im a client.. in LIVE online peer-to-peer play. My number of kills dont magically double and I'm not somehow twice as fast as was last game.

So I have to wonder.. how many people make stories up about someone having an advantage.. just because they continue to get owned by the same people over and over.

I agree, it is frustrating when you can't get in a game. I've had issues with that on Live and PSN. It happens and just re-affirms what I said earlier. Halo 3/Resistance/Warhawk are much smoother experience than GRAW1, 2, especially PGR3 (worst by far, gave up online due to being fed up with it) for online onnecting.

FYI, it honestly sounds like you haven't played Warhawk. Rank does not effect weapon selection. Sure you can get access to different skins for the characters and warhawks, but that doesn't change gameplay. When COD4 comes out I'm sure it will have its issues to be sorted out just like most games. Until then it is a bit early to know if the there will be such issues. Other points are for matching up are good points and has come through on playing GRAW 1,2. I've never really paid close enough attention on Warhawk as the battles are much more epic with a large number of players on each side, so one player doesn't have a huge impact on the balance of the game.

I don't expect dedicated servers to fix everything but the improvement is very significant from my experiences and I'd gladly pay for it if I had to or if it was an option when not offered.

Like I've always said give me the best of both and I'll be happy to pay the $ for it.

Guys, don't take this thread off topic.
Enough with the online debates.

Keep this topic PS3 related.

Kyser

Well, I had to delete a few more posts.
Some people just don't get it.

Closed