[chapel]

It is amazing how a seemingly reputable publication such as GamePro can write an article with so much false information. In their recent article PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports: The cold, hard truth they look at four highly anticipated multi-platform titles that were released and how they fare for each system. I am not here to pick sides in the console war, but the misinformation in this article must be addressed.

Much of the article is highly subjective drivel from the author touching on topics such as which controller is best. I thought this was supposed to be "The cold, hard truth" not someone's opinion on controller layout. I will quote some of the more audacious statements made by the author, Tracy Erickson, then give responses based on truth and not lies.

Assassins Creed

The Xbox 360 excels with first-person shooters, but third-person action games...not so much. As such, the Sixaxis is better suited for free running about the ancient domains of Assassin's Creed.

Why is the Sixaxis better for third-person action games and free running where as the 360's controller...not so much? I would agree that the 360's controller for me has a better layout for first person shooters, I don't understand how a third person action game is that much different. Honestly this argument is best left up to the user's preference of the controller and not for us to decide.

Burnout Paradise

A cleaner interface, easier access to online features, and smoother performance online afford PlayStation 3 the edge. Dedicated servers ensure stability during multiplayer races; moreover, the game was optimized for the console, so it just runs better on it when playing online.

The interface and online features for both systems inside of Burnout Paradise are identical, just how Criterion intended. When did the game get dedicated servers on the Playstation 3? Let alone saying it is more optimized on one console over the other when the creators themselves said they didn't prefer one system over the other when it came to performance and features. The fact is that the experience on both consoles is near identical especially when you consider the fact that the developers created a custom online menu for the game. (Here is a link to a podcast with some of the programmers of Burnout Paradise on the topic of multi-platform game development. MP3)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

You couldn't be blamed for believing that the Xbox 360 had the upper hand with this multiplayer-dominated game thanks to Xbox Live; however, superior execution on PlayStation 3 makes it the better version. Control preferences (or friends lists) may lead you to play on Xbox 360, but you simply cannot deny that Call of Duty 4's online functionality works better on PlayStation 3. Stable, dedicated servers are preferable to peer-to-peer networking any day of the week.

I will let Calen, a programmer for Infinity Ward that worked on Call of Duty 4, explain why the above is ever so blatantly false.

We do not have dedicated, hosted, no-client servers on PS3 or 360. The PC game comes with a dedicated server executable for people to run if they want to set up a dedicated server, but the console game does not.

We choose the best host from the people in the match lobby, based on a ton of factors including bandwidth and everyone's ping to the host (it's got no relation to who was first in the lobby or anything like that.) Then that host serves as the server for that match. It's not "peer to peer" in the sense that clients don't run their own part of the server and send that gamestate around to each other over the net (which is what I personally think of when I hear "peer to peer".) But it's also not "dedicated" in the sense that most folks think of it." - Calen @ NeoGAF

Not only did they lie about the dedicated servers for the Playstation 3 version, but they are perpetuating the fallacy of "peer to peer" or P2P on Xbox Live.

Devil May Cry 4

Were it not for the lengthy install required on PlayStation 3, it'd be an easy choice. Devil May Cry 4 controls better on PlayStation 3, but is less of a hassle on Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 controller just can't match the feel of a Sixaxis when hacking up demons.

Again they bring up subjective arguments about the difference in the controllers, when a game lets users map the buttons, you can't claim one is better than the other as if it were a fact. Even though the series has a history on the Playstation, the 360 version is just as playable.

Those were the few parts that stood out to me as being either completely false or just down right subjective. There is little content that was worth reading in this piece other than flames for the uneducated to throw. I honestly hope this is not a trend that spreads to other publications.

It is hard to write this article without sounding like a fanboy, but the obvious and frequent misinformation spewed by this writer clearly favors the Playstation 3. The sad part about that is the Playstation 3 is more than capable of a system and doesn't need to be lied about for people to enjoy it. GamePro, I hope you enjoy the long hard shaft of reality!

[tweakmonkey]

Maybe GamePro's article should've been called, "PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports: Biased opinions and lies"

I used to read GamePro magazine... back when the SNES was big. It was a fair magazine then, but Next-Generation was always my favorite. I was a bit naive about biases as a teen, but I guess the Internet makes it all too easy to try and pull a fast one like this.

[Bundini]

Excellent writeup, chapel.

The only thing I really object to is your opening sentence. There is nothing "reputable" about GamePro. Everyone working in gaming knows that is is the laughingstock of the industry.

Between incredibly biased "reports," completely falsified stories, and misleading covers, GamePro continues to undermine the legitimacy of gaming journalism for all of us.

You got my Digg.

[chapel]

Originally Posted by Bundini

The only thing I really object to is your opening sentence. There is nothing "reputable" about GamePro. Everyone working in gaming knows that is is the laughingstock of the industry. )

Well as much as I know that their content is mostly crap, I didn't want to blaspheme them too soon without proving my point. Not only that I did leave some leeway on the reputable part by saying "seemingly reputable" since they might appear to be so, but in reality aren't.