Magazine/Website Reviews

GAMESPOT gives it a 5.5

REVIEW

even the user scores are going down....which is obvious...due to lot of bugs and the game being broken online with 0 confirmation from codies. No matter how small your audience, you are hurting your brand name by not delivering a working game. Based on the numbers Matt gave for sale of ashes 2009 it is not very small either, they clearly were able to make some profit.

I am sure there will be many other games that were broken after release but it takes the developers/publishers less than a month to release a patch in most of those cases and with some additional content........

And here we are, forget about additional content, having hard time to just make them believe that there is a major problem....and hoping that they just fix the bugs and release a patch...
 
^ He's rightly laying into the online but I'm not sure he's justified in lowering the score because of when they chose to release it. :p
 
average review scores

FYI, I've been keeping an eye out - the game is averaging around 76% on PS3, 69% on 360, and 71% overall.

Metacritic has the PS3 at 73% and the 360 at 60%.

Interestingly enough, the 360 consistently gets lower scores - the bottom reviews (50-70% range) are 360 ones, and the top (80-90% range) are all PS3 ones. Has anyone noticed much of a difference between them? I've heard the framerate is better on PS3...
 
Gamespot's, Eurogamer's and IGN's scoring is weird. It seems they hardly have some knowledge about cricket games. Tech2's review is a decent one.
 
The review marks are the same for both the consoles. PS3 has a higher rating because it has less reviews. If you look at a site, which has reviewed both the ps3 and 360, you will notice that the marks are the same. Why are PS3's reviews less? Doesn't it sell much :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top