discuss

Amped 3

IGN (6.9)
Gamespot (7.6)
Team Xbox (7.5)



Call of Duty 2

IGN (9.0)
Gamespot (8.8)
Team Xbox (9.0, Editor's Choice)



Condemned

IGN (8.7)
Gamespot (8.0)
Team Xbox (8.2)



FIFA 06

IGN (6.9)
Gamspot (6.0)



Gun

IGN (7.9)
Gamespot (6.4)



Kameo

IGN(8.4)
Gamespot (8.7)
Team Xbox (8.8)



King Kong

Gamespot (8.2)
IGN (8.0)



Madden 2006

IGN (8.0)
Gamespot (7.4)
Team Xbox (8.0)



NBA 2K6

IGN (7.8)
Gamespot (8.3)
Team Xbox (8.5)



NBA Live 2006

IGN (5.9)
Team Xbox (8.1)
Gamespot (6.4)



Need For Speed Most Wanted

IGN (8.0, multi-platform review)
Gamespot (8.4)
Team Xbox (8.3)



NHL2K6

IGN(7.1)
Team Xbox (7.7)



Perfect Dark Zero

Gamespot (9.0)
Team Xbox (8.8)
IGN (8.4)



Project Gotham Racing 3

IGN (8.8)
Team Xbox (9.4)
Gamespot (8.8)



Quake 4

Gamespot (6.6)
IGN (8.1)
Team Xbox (8.5)



Tony Hawk's American Wasteland

IGN (8.3)
Gamespot (6.6)
Team
Xbox (7.0)


Ridge Racer 6
IGN (7.0)
Gamespot (8.1)
Team Xbox (7.4)


Tiger Woods
IGN (6.8)
Gamespot (7.8)
Team Xbox (6.9)

Interesting scores so far; not bad, but certainly not outstanding.

One thing that worries me is that usually when a console first comes out, the scores the games get tend to be a bit inflated, since there isn't really much of that same generation to compare them to. If that is the case here, and these scores are a bit inflated, that is a bit disappointing.

1up.com gave PGR3 a 10....(there's your inflation)

I haven't read the reviews, but maybe they are fianlly learning to pull themselves away from the "wow" factor and rate the game for its own worth, not just that it is a next-gen title.

Doubt it though.

And what's wrong with solid 8s? That is still a substantial score, even in the ever high-rating world of Internet game sites. Do people expect 10s at launch, or even ever? Very few games should ever breach the 9, let alone 10 mark.

Actually, the opposite is often true. The intial games are given good but not great scores to leave room to go up for later games. You can't honestly give all 15+ launch games a 9+ score. The same scoring principle also often bites divers, gymnasts, etc. who are unlucky enough to have to go first.

Anyone else think they should be disclosing the television they are reviewing on for these HD games?

No. Leave that for the hard core DVD review sites.

Game reviews should focus on the content of the games. I'd hate to see reviews, and gaming in general, shift to focusing on the videophiles. There's way to much emphasis on graphics as is.

I think they should disclose if they are rating it based on being played in HD or not-HD, it can effect gameplay.

Anyone find it interesting that there are no reviews for Perfeck Dark 0, arguably the highest profile game of the launch?

I found it interesting, and if you happened to catch IGN's Online Game Guide they made a jab at the game. "Perfect Dark Zero (Microsoft Game Studios): The return of Rare's Perfect Dark series is enough to make some Rare fans cry with happiness. We don't quite feel the same way, but hey, 32-player deathmatch on Xbox Live? We're all for that."

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/663/663047p6.html

I agree with that.

I just don't want to see video game reviewers start listing their TVs, and home theater setups in the reviews.

That stuff just always seemed like nothing more than "my penis is bigger than yours" type of bragging anyway.

Who cares? If it looks great on one HDTV, it will look great on them all, with it obviously looking the best on the top of the line sets.

I would think they should at least mention the hardware/tv they're using.
While certainly the 'gameplay' is important, one of the most obvious differences between 360 and Xbox games, at least right now, will be the graphics. How's the HD, how's the analog, does the non-HD noticeably improve on original Xbox, etc.

And game ratings are interesting. On a scale of 1-10, I would think a 6 or 7 would be decent and playable, and 7.5-8.5 would be quite good. If I were looking at the ratings of all games for one console, I would expect to see some sort of bell curve, with a few totally crappy games down in the 1-3 range, a few superb, must-owns at the 9-10, and a large number of games in 5-7 or 8 as "Pretty/very good, a few flaws/annoyances, but fun."

Again, I agree compare HD to non-HD in reviews is a great idea. Just not what make and model of HDTV they have.

I agree with you, with the exception that there are shitty HDTVs out there that are washed out or are known to have bad contrast/brightness levels, to ding the game for bad visuals just because the reviewers equipment sucks would be a shame, and there are plenty of people who blindly believe such reviews.

kaki

Make and model? Nah I'm talking more about native 720p or 1080i upconvert and then if it's a plasma, CRT, rear projection, etc.

I do think HD matters for quality of the graphics, however, the game will play the same on any TV. Gameplay IS STILL IMPORTANT

I'm a bit disappointed in the NBA games so far....I still may get one (possibly wait until X-mas for it). I like 2K6 on XBOX, so I may just get that....I haven't played NBA Live 06 though (except on PSP)

I believe they will have a D/L demo for Live 06 though on XBOX LIVE....that is still a DAMN cool feature of the 360.

IGN's Kameo review mentions that they were holding back, learning from last generation's reviews.

Links updated.

Gamespot's NBA2K6 score is quite a bit more encouraging. Will be reading full review later.

Says the person who doesnt have an HDTV.

Maybe it makes one feel inferior to hear all the HDTV talk. I wouldnt know.

So far there's not a less than above average title reviewed... and we've still got Condemned, Perfect Dark Zero and Quake 4 to go. I don't forsee a true stinker in the bunch.

Compare that to the original Xbox launch. While there were 8's and 9's for Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Fuzion Frenzy... there were also titles like Bruce Lee, Kabuki Warriors and Cel Damage that got very poor marks.

If you want to throw some 1up.com scores into the mix:

PGR3 - 10.0
CoD2 - 9.0
FIFA - 7.0
NBA 2K6 - 7.0
Amped 3 - 7.0

It seems that they are really struggling to review games that are also available on the PS2 and XBox. 1up gives NBA 2K6 a 7.0, even though they gave the XBox version a 9.0. What's the story - on the XBox it's a must buy, but on the 360 it's treading almost into "rent it first" territory? Is the 7.0 relative to some unfounded expectations, to other 360 games, or to the XBox/PS2 version of the game? It's almost as if these games need two reviews, one for people who already have the game on a current-gen system (5.0 - don't bother upgrading) and one for people who waited for the 360 version (9.0 - same as XBox but with better graphics, additional controls, and (according to IGN) improved AI.)

I'm not trying to nit-pick and rip on them for this particular review, I'm just using this as one example of the problem I'm seeing in a lot of these reviews.

I'm seeing that too. I purposely avoided any games on current gen systems that are also coming out on the 360. I'd imagine that, with NBA 2K6 for example, the 360 version is superior to the current version. And if you've never played it before, the 360 one is the way to go.

Yeah, that's my complaint too. I stopped buying Xbox games after Madden, waiting on the 360 versions. Now, does the 360 version of NBA2K6 stink, or is it just not enough to warrant a second purchase? Would anyone really buy that game twice? Seems like some faulty reasoning to me.

No. They should have HDTV talk, we just don't need to here which specific HDTV. Just compare the HDTV experience versus the standard in the review so both parties know what to expect.

Listing your specific HT setup in a review is just tacky showing off IMO.