I couldn't quite get away with this thread six months ago I don't think. For a long time Sony fans have held IGN up as the standard-bearer of impartiality. It has helped that they are often inclined to give very high marks to Sony exclusives, whilst dishing out great, but less than brilliant marks to Xbox 360 exclusives.
But recently, the standard-bearing site of gaming released another part of their "Top 25 consoles of all time" list, and suddenly IGN are (and I quote from the thread concerning said list) "Biased and Fail."
But ultimately all IGN are doing is recognising that the majority of the hardcore gaming community is of the opinion that the Xbox 360 offers more, better, varied gaming experiences than it's direct competitors. As an owner of all three systems, I can honestly claim to have tried most of the gems each of them possesses (with one glaring exception in that I have only spent a few minutes with MGS4). Both the Wii and the PS3 have some truly groundbreaking and brilliant games. But what IGN is doing is recognising that from a gaming perspective, the Xbox 360 simply has more of them. I loved Valkyria Chronicles, I loved inFamous, and to a lessor extent I thought Uncharted was great. I loved SMG, I loved Mario Kart, and to a lessor extent thought Super Smash Brothers Brawl was great.
But the Xbox 360 simply has a longer list of games that are lovable or great for your average hardcore gamer. It also has innovations that the gamer prefers. You can argue till you're blue in the face about things like exclusives and what not, but the fact remains that at the point this list was made anyone wanting a next-generation experience with as many great games as possible has to jump in to an Xbox 360. The IGN list doesn't ignore the existence of a casual market. That is why the Wii is so high up the list despite offering less excellent games than many other contendors. IGN is recognising what Nintendo has done for the market. But people who wish to argue from a gaming perspective (like IGN), need to remember not to overstate the importance of things like Blu-Ray, or motion control and focus on games. These two things are only significant insofar as they can benefit games, which so far is very little. If Natal doesn't benefit games, it too will have no bearing on these sorts of lists.
It is very hard to understand for someone who hasn't owned an Xbox 360 and spent some serious time with it. I understand that all you would then hear about is hardware failures and a system that sounds as though it is a Jet Fighter taking off. But IGN understands, as do most Xbox 360 owners, that there is simply an enormous library of astounding games for the console that doesn't seem to end, and that that counts for something. Neither of the other two consoles have quite gotten to that point of critical mass in terms of quality yet.
I can also understand why Playstation versus Xbox 360 was a tough call for IGN. Both brought massive innovation to the industry. Though not inventing CD's for consoles, Playstation took them mainstream. Though not inventing internet for consoles, Xbox 360 took it mainstream. But games wise if you look at a website like Metacritic, you'll find the Xbox 360 is fast catching the Playstation in terms of the number of high quality games available. It has done so with a quarter of the userbase and less than half the active market time.
This list is no reason to attack IGN's credibility. For people who have only owned Sony or Nintendo consoles their whole lives, it is understandably easy to forget that Microsoft has an amazing, cheap, high-quality GAMES console out there. But it is out there, it is amazing, it is diverse, and it is currently the best games console of this generation.
Edit: The thread is question can be found here.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS