| Andrespetmonkey said: I think there are 2 metrics we can use here: 1. In comparison to respective rivals/in the context of each gen (however you wish to phrase it) - The Wii's amount of core content is slightly above abysmal thanks to excellent first party, compared to it's competitors. How did the Cube and the N64's library of core games compare to their respective competitors? 2. Directly in comparison to each other. Which one is better? Should we use both? |
I'm not sure! But that is an excellent question.
Hmm, if we were to compare in relativity to the rivals, is that a fair comparison? For example, should the performance of one maker be judged based on the fluctuating performance of another?
It could be argued that as a console maker, the content must be competitive with the rival makers. If one raises the bar and the other doesn't keep up, that could be a legitimate concern.
In threads that contain a non-constructive criticism attitude, but a legitimate complaint, this could be a good question to ask off the bat, to see where the goalposts are.
That brings us to another interesting point, how important are goal-posts in these contexts, and how important is it to focus on the goal-posts?
Your question highlights exactly that and that's why I like it.
