mrstickball said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
mrstickball said:
One could always go with 80%+ rated games:
X360: 110
PS3: 58
Wii: 20
Any way you cut it, it's always like that. |
No, I've seen people do it multiple ways, like highly rated games as a percentage of overall games, that has PS3 on top.
Any way you cut it, XBLA games pad the raw numbers of high scoring AND low scoring games for 360. They are a bonus to owning the system, certainly, but we all know that a smooth mini game that happens to work well and gets an 80 or 90 is NOT equivalent to a Gears or a Bioshock (a big disc-based game) for 360. Thus, it doesn't make complete sense to use them to pad high-score numbers.
Plus, I think the numbers are well in line between the systems given the longer life of 360 and -- undeniably -- the fact that early 360 games got higher scores just because of the "wow" factor of a new HD console.
|
Hey, I don't think X360 owners can help it that XBLA totally craps all over PSN games. It's not like WipeoutHD, Siren, GT5p, SSHD and others aren't counted. They are part of that 58 games, just like XBLA and WiiWare are parts of 110 and 20 games, respectively.
That's kind of like saying "you can't count JRPGs because we just don't have any"
|
They can't help PAYING $45/year for it, that's true. (or maybe that's just to enable online gameplay, shit I don't know).
And my point is that it so happens that a few of them just snuck in at a 90 flat or whatev. BFD. Those aren't full games at 90. If PS3 had more online games at 90, I'd still admit that mini-game with scores of 90 aren't equivalent to full release games with scores of 90.
