NHL 10 Review
Not sure if you noticed, but last night we posted our reviews of NHL 10 on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 with scores of 8.5 and 8.0, respectively. The difference between the two games was that, based on time spent with retail copies on retail servers, the online multiplayer was silky smooth on the...
Not sure if you noticed, but last night we posted our reviews of NHL 10 on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 with scores of 8.5 and 8.0, respectively. The difference between the two games was that, based on time spent with retail copies on retail servers, the online multiplayer was silky smooth on the X360 but very laggy on the PS3. That was accurate at 9:42pm last night when the review was posted but, increasingly, it seems that any review we post is in danger of being rendered inaccurate or out-of-date within weeks, days, or on this occasion hours of it going up on the site.
We were contacted by EA Sports this morning and told that, while the PS3 servers were still being optimized up until late last night--not in time for our review, but in time for the game's arrival in stores--today they're up and running, and making the multiplayer every bit as smooth as it is on the X360. After checking this out for ourselves we found that the PS3 servers are indeed much-improved and so, in fairness to both the development team and to those of you looking for an accurate review to base your purchasing decision on, we decided to up the PS3 review score from an 8.0 to an 8.5--bringing it in line with the more-or-less identical X360 version.
In case you're wondering, the main reason we opted to go back and edit the review on this occasion rather than post one of our "After the Fact" updates is that the improvements to the game were made prior to the game being available in stores. Therefore, the multiplayer portion of our original PS3 review, while based entirely on time spent with a retail copy of the game and accurate at the time that we posted it, wasn't actually representative of the online experience that any of you going out and buying the game are going to have.
49 comments
am about to go to Belfast tomorrow to get this.didn't get 09 but am tempted by this.always like to see what other people think and the reviews on here have convinced me.
I skipped NHL 09, and so far 10 is a HUGE upgrade since I last played...I personally give it a 9.5 While the first-person fighting is really cool, as is the energy boost it gives your team, I am most thrilled about the against the board scrums...they're extremely realistic, and really make the overall pacing of the game feel like the NHL. Also, it adds value to players who are strong, but not necessarily huge hitters or offensively talented, ala Scott Hannan, Robyn Regehr, etc - finally, solid defensive defensemen are good for more than just unrealistic open ice hits. (not to mention it REALLY makes guys like Chris Pronger dominant) Also, outside of a few lame choices (Nickelback, Papa Roach) I really liked the soundtrack in this year's edition, which was quite a pleasant surprise - they really had some cool under the radar selections of songs that actually go well with hockey, especially Earl Greyhound's "Oye Vaya". Overall, great job, EA.
Just wanted to throw this in here: I played 09 on xbox and am playing nhl 10 on ps3. I switched to ps3 between the two releases. I have noticed considerably MORE lag on the PS3. In fact, I don't even bother playing ranked games anymore because they get ruined by lag and I lose interest and leave.
Brett's review of the game was awesome, someone tell him. For the first time that i've seen, a hockey video game reviewer didn't dumb down the hockey talk... it was addressed to fans. and the 'in dire need of espresso' line made me lol, too.
game seems alot harder the 09, unless its me, doing ok on be a pro but struggling in gm mode and online against peeps, cant score to save me life...
The transparency Gamespot has been offering in situations like this is the right way to handle things - well done.
@JusticeCovert: I'm writing to the author of this blog update, JusticeCovert. I can understand why the score was made even in this scenario. I give Gamespot respect for initially rating the Xbox 360 version higher when the performance advantage of the Xbox 360 was clear. I also give credit for making the review scores even when the performance was equal. But here is one thing I don't understand about a recent review -- Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2. Gamespot rated both the Xbox 360 and PS3 version of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 the same. However, other well-known reliable websites rated the Xbox 360 version higher due to the obvious advantage the Xbox 360 version has with load times. Let me explain in detail: Another website accurately pointed out that the PS3 version of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 takes 8 seconds to load each time you change characters. This is an incredibly long time to be staring at an unmoving screen, especially in a game that takes 15 - 20 hours to finish. You will need to change characters literally hundreds of times over the course of the game. The Xbox 360 version takes only 3-4 seconds to load each time you change characters. Obviously this is a big advantage for Xbox 360, considering you swap characters hundreds of times over the course of this 15 - 20 hour game. The reason for this is because Xbox 360 transfers data at a rate of 16MB per second compared to only 9MB per second for PS3. So, what I'm wondering is, if other websites thought the load times made enough of a difference to rate the Xbox 360 version higher (which is something everyone I know who bought the game agrees with), then why didn't Gamespot even mention the loading in the reviews? I personally wouldn't mind seeing Gamespot go back and modify the review scores for Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 in order to make it clear to people that the PS3 version has painstakingly long load times. This is something a friend of mine would have appreciated knowing about. Thank you for listening to me. I look forward to hearing to what you have to say. Sincerely, Salarian Chemist
gow2 still lags for me, unbearably. every other game that i play online has no lag at all.
@Ravage27 - You obviously havent even played Gears 2 since its not 4v4 but 5v5 and you dont have any friends. Because while the matchmaking was less then perfect(Didn't have that much problems myself, maby server differences between the US and Europe) but when joining/invited to a specific game it works all the time and to be honest, playing whit friends is the only way to enjoy any multiplayer games..
ok fair enough....but to be fair why didn't gears2 get marked down for its horrible online connection? It was a problem that lasted months(i don't know if it's fixed yet,returned it once i completed the campaign).The fact that it only needs to support 4v4 made it even more puzzling. I'm just saying that the SAME policy should be applied for ALL games, big games with huge budget shouldn't get a free pass just because of that.
Well, I think JusticeCovert did an excellent job of explaining why the review was posted as it was last night, why the change was made today, and why it shouldn't be a problem going forward. Gamespot didn't drop the ball here; EA did. In failing to tell the reviewers that the PS3 servers were not optimized yet, they created the problem. If they had done so, I am sure that GS would have rightly withheld the PS3 review until they could review it accurately as they did with Madden when EA didn't send them a PS3 copy.
@topdawg122: As a general rule, our individual reviewers are supposed to avoid any contact with the companies whose games they are working on. On this occasion, the only way we were able to test online games with the maximum number of players was to liaise with EA and join an organized session. At no time were we told that the servers were still being optimized, though. @im_back: As you point out, deliberately waiting to review every game with an online component until after everyone has already bought it isn't really something we can do if we want our reviews to be timely. The problem is that to test online multiplayer really early we'd almost always have to do so using non-retail hardware and copies of the game, which to us is unacceptable. Right now our position is that we always use retail copies of the game, but sadly there's no way for us to know in advance what will happen when tens of thousands of people all log on at the same time. @Gelugog_baat: I think it goes without saying that the online performance of a game is going to depend somewhat on the speed of your connection. It's true that our office's line is superb, but most of us play these games at home as well, and I can't speak for everyone but my home connection can be painful at times.
I feel real bad for you reviewers now. You get a game you play it you either like/dislike something about it, you post a review and then there is a patch available day one that fixes the problem and now you look bad. Maybe you guys should just say with your review scores, pre-launch score then post launch score so people know in advance that if any changes are made that your review was based on the "final" copy you got and not the ones we get.
I really don't think this is a PS3 vs Xbox issue. The issue is that, I as a reader of Gamespot now expect this kind of error correcting with every game from now on. I just think GS need to have a sit down and decide how to handle this kind of error correction. Adhoc is not a way forward since almost everyone will call no fair on that. Be consistent about it and make it a hard and fast rule and don't leave it up to individual reviewers.
It's better this way. I'm not getting the game on any console but i know it's fair to the PS3 now.
@ im_back what GS will do is wait the publisher to talk to them, just like EA did. Is wrong, but thats what it will happen.
You guys should have contacted the developers about the online portions before you posted the review
Although I am happy that Gamespot decided to bring the PS3's score in-line with its current state, I do have a question for you Justin. If in this case EA informed you that the servers were still being optimised, what happens if they didn't? I mean, I have always been of the opinion that online content should always be reviewed once the public has full access to the product since it makes things a bit more honest but puts review sites such as GS in a position where reviewed content will be rather delayed and thus can't really aid early buyers, and by doing this once, you will have to extend this offer to every online game in the future, i.e. if online is an issue, and your review is up before launch, you will have to go back and adjust every time once you have made sure.. Thats a lot of extra work you are now expected to do..
A very good explanation and article, JusticeCovert. I can see your point: changing the rating prior to the game actually being on store shelves is quite acceptable.:)
@PvtGump8: What needs updating? Last time we checked, Fat Princess's online was still far from perfect. If that's changed, by all means let us know via an email to afterthefact@gamespot.com
I noticed that and was wondering what accounted for the .5 discrepancy between platforms.
its in the sites best intrest to change scores whenever they feel the pressure from their advertizers, wich also happen to be the companies that make the games they review. when EA says jump, gamespot says how high?
Not that I am even remotely interested in NHL10, but I really appreciate the lengths the GS staff goes to to make sure their reviews are accurate. It makes me that much more confident in purchasing a game based on you guys' recommendation.
Your witnessing history here folks i think this is only the second time GS has ever changed a review score
@JusticeCovert: The whole money thing was ment towards Kane and Lynch review. And I thought GTA4 thing was changed because most of the GS staff thought it deserved a 10. Same with MGS4. I could have swore I saw that up at a 9.5, but I'm probably wrong about that. Only mentioned those 2 game because I thought those 2 games were posted and then changed.
@SexySasquatch11: If by MSG4 you mean MGS4, I don't believe that was ever a 9.5. It's true that I originally submitted my GTAIV review with a score of 9.5 and that that score appeared on the site briefly, but it never appeared alongside the review because the review and the score hadn't been finalized yet. Ultimately it was my decision to go with the 10, and it had nothing to do with complaints, money, or job security.
Blah blah blah...MSG4 and GTA4 were both 9.5 then they changed them to 10's. Someone complained or threw more money, or the person didn't want to get fired for being "biased".
Thanks for the transparency about the whole process. It is nice to know at least one major gaming website is upfront about it's reviewing process.
Not sure if you noticed, but last night we posted our reviews of NHL 10 on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 with scores of 8.5 and 8.0, respectively. The difference between the two games was that, based on time spent with retail copies on retail servers, the online multiplayer was silky smooth on the X360 but very laggy on the PS3. That was accurate at 9:42pm last night when the review was posted but, increasingly, it seems that any review we post is in danger of being rendered inaccurate or out-of-date within weeks, days, or on this occasion hours of it going up on the site.
We were contacted by EA Sports this morning and told that, while the PS3 servers were still being optimized up until late last night--not in time for our review, but in time for the game's arrival in stores--today they're up and running, and making the multiplayer every bit as smooth as it is on the X360. After checking this out for ourselves we found that the PS3 servers are indeed much-improved and so, in fairness to both the development team and to those of you looking for an accurate review to base your purchasing decision on, we decided to up the PS3 review score from an 8.0 to an 8.5--bringing it in line with the more-or-less identical X360 version.
In case you're wondering, the main reason we opted to go back and edit the review on this occasion rather than post one of our "After the Fact" updates is that the improvements to the game were made prior to the game being available in stores. Therefore, the multiplayer portion of our original PS3 review, while based entirely on time spent with a retail copy of the game and accurate at the time that we posted it, wasn't actually representative of the online experience that any of you going out and buying the game are going to have.
Conversation powered by Livefyre
Game Emblems
The Good
Hot Forum Topics
Also on:
NHL 10 Navigation
