I've thought about it some more, and from the following point of view, irony does fit in the parallel situation:
"360 is powerful, and started off strong but was beaten by the Wii because the 360 would breakdown and the Wii had other desirable features."
"Both the 360 and Wii cars are powerful car, like the 360 in real life the car broke down. The talent of the Wii car's driver put him in a good finishing position."
Why is this irony? The first could loosely be categorized as irony, while the second statements ironic characteristic hinges on both the first statement and on the probability of the car breakdown. You wouldn't expect the parallel circumstance, so it becomes ironic. Still it's a stretch.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
