I was briefly glancing over the NHL 2010 reviews for both Xbox 360 and PS3. If you notice the review, you will see that the PS3 was given an 8.0 over the 360s 8.5. In the game's PS3 review, you will notice two additions to the game's 'The Bad'
- Laggy online play
- Just an incremental advancement over NHL 09
I understand the Laggy Online Play, but why is the NHL 10 review on PS3 given a negative mark on the game for a being 'an incremental advancement over NHL 09' If you read both reviews (which btw, are identical), the author states:
The bottom line with NHL 10 is that if you have NHL 09, you don't absolutely, positively need it. But there are enough new features and little adjustments and fixes both online and off that any self-respecting hockey fan should probably still go for it. EA Sports has once again done an absolutely tremendous job of simulating shinny.
So, why is that the PS3 version is given the bad on that and not the 360? I am not trying to be any sort of fanboy, but the lack of an explanation can be quite confusing for those who may purchase the game. If the author is talking about the incremental advancement on the Online side, then isn't stating the issue with Online enough? Since Brett Todd (the author) is a freelance worker for GameSpot without any contact, I can't ask him this personally. Hopefully someone at GameSpot's staff can explain this in a bit more detail.
Comments
They actually just put up a story telling why they gave the score a .5 less than 360, and said that the problem has been fixed coinciding with the games release. It was with regards to terrible online lag with the PS3 version.
Also, I believe that the statement that they should hire someone who knows a thing or two about hockey is also a little false. Although both you and I are big hockey fans, choosing someone who doesn't know everything about hockey makes the review better for the general public, giving them less of a fright about getting the game, as they are being told by someone with similar knowledge of the sport that it's good and easy to get into.
@lazyhoboguy: Yes, the omission of the bad entry about the game being an incremental advancement from one of the reviews was an oversight on my part. That sort of thing can happen when you're still posting reviews close to 10pm I guess. My bad.
@GearHead3000: We always try to use reviewers who are both knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject matter of the games they review. But you're right, our reviews are written not only for hardcore players (who, truth be told, have probably already preordered the game before seeing a review), but also for more casual players.
I'm not saying the review was lousy, because hey, at least you guys do cover sports games, unlike other sites we know, but it was just missing some elements.
NeoJedi