Signature updated.

[WereKitten]

starcraft said:

WereKitten said:

starcraft said:

Oh I see.  So it's gloating anytime someone puts forth objective information regarding the quaility of each console's back-catalogue with virtually no personal analysis whatsoever?

On the other hand the very fact that you attach to these numbers the interpretation of "quality of each console's back catalogue" is completely personal.

I would like to hear the logic by which Forza 2, GRAW 1, Geometry wars add more quality today to the 360's catalogue than R&C or Uncharted 1 or VC do to the PS3's.

I would like you to provide a more objective measure of console library quality before you criticise my commonly accepted one.

Because when Lombroso presented his studies about how phrenologic measures could lead to spotting individuals who were biologically bound to become criminals and psychopaths, nobody had the right to criticise this alleged correlation until they provided an alternative objective method to spot them?

It might very be that I think that there's no objective measure of such kind. But even that is behind the point, because the burden of the proof is on who advances the idea.

If you want to answer my question we might very well debate why I think that's a poor measure.

PS: also "commonly accepted one"?