HD Twins: Greatest Exclusive Lists (updated through 2011)

[sales2099]

osamanobama said:

sales2099 said:

Just as I thought.......a  filtered list courtesy of PS3 propaganda.

- 1)not including games rated 70-79% on metacritic is purely to cut off the 360s massive lead in that category over PS3. I dont understand how people could cut games that are the equivalent of a B to B+ in the school grading system.

-2) Not including XBLA. This is the area where MS ALWAYS outdoes PSN. 360s biggest games asset against PS3. And here you go.....filtering the whole damn thing out. 

- 3)Not including party/casual/arcadey games. I thought we were talking about quality. But no....we have to filter and judge great games that dont fit our "core" tastes.

- 4)Not including Kinect. Move flopped with ZERO move specific games above 80, where as Kinect actually has several, you should still count them anyway

1) No, i didnt count the 70-79% because i only wanted to count games that are generaly considered quality. and in most cases thats 80+. and i seriously doubt xbox has significantly more exclusives with those score than PS3. and is that something really to be proud of? having more games that are essentially "C" rated games?

2) again, i also didnt include PSN, and this is because retail games are not comparable to download only games. they arent reviewed to the same standards, arent looked at with the same standards. if you released some XBLA game as a retail $60 game, do you honestly think its production values,  and content would justify the purchase, and do you honestly think reviewers would be a generous, with giving out an 80+ score to it? they arent on the same footing and arent comperable.

3) that actually removes more PS3 games than xbox ones, and it was again to look at games that are comperable, held to the same reviewing standards.

4) again, this is redundant with your 3rd point, and is explained by my second. its all to look at games on the same level. apples and oranges. furthermore, im pretty sure Move has a few, Eye pet comes to mind. and if you really think sports compilation mini games, and dancing games deserve to be looked at on the same plane as the likes of Halo, and Gears, and Killzone and Uncharted, then go ahead, and make that list.

furthermore you contradict yourself 1st you complain that i left off 70-79 score games , then you go ahead and talk about MOve games not scoring above 80, while there are a few Kinect ones. Which standard should we use 70 or 80?

 

lastly you are very hypocritical in all of your slanted view points. you constantly talk about how all the PS3 games dont count because they arent relevent to gamers, because sales arent 5 million+ for every single game.

then when someone mentions reletively low sales of an xbox game, you say well look at the reviews, that's what matters: see Forza series.

You constantly deminish games because they arent "relevent", then you go on and champion XBLA games. accoding to your standards those games arent relevent most will be lucky to get 100,000 in sales let alone 5 million or even 1 million.

So what matters? Relevancy? Sales? Reviews? one can never know with you, you constantly contradict your own arguments, just to make you feel good about yourself. as if you need to reafirm and convince yourself that you made the right purchasing decision. it seems you have a really inflated ego, presumably because you are insecure in real life, when not hiding behind the safety of a computer screen. but if you somehow find joy in making everything into a fanboy competion, go ahead, but leave it out of here.

 

as for your other post. No games, listed, no source, no nothing. also it has a lot of faults in it too because not all games are reviewed by the same companies or given the same score. just look at Mass effect 2, or even Batman. furthermore, that list includes tons of DLC and add-ons.

it also seems odd that you arent complaining about me including PC games on the list, not even Xbox exclusives.

No one can ever make a list, have an opinion that could possibly fullfill your standards because you have none. They constantly change to fit your fanboy wars. 

1. I dont know the schools you go to but a C+ is a 65-69. A B- to a B+ is a 70-79 where I come from and many people are satisfied with those. I am not asking anybody counts metacritic games rated 60-69

2. I just think that quality is quality, regardless of budget or price. Neglecting them just isnt right, especially since it is one of 360s best assets. 

3. It actually removes a lot more on 360 if XBLA was considered, but you allready explained yourself there. 

4. Sports Champions and Eyepet are in the 70's on metacritic. Move really has no 80+ games (move specifically). While not on the same level to "core games", quality is quality, even if it isnt the taste of some of us. 

- I am a advocate of relevancy, but this is about quality. They are not one in the same. Relevancy is how the real world sees and reacts to games. These lists have nothing to do with it. They are purely about on-paper quality. 

- I actually applaud your 360/pc inclusion. Anything on one but not the other deserves to be mentioned. 

My personal standards:

- Must be a game at least rated above 70

- Must be on 360 and not on PS3 (and vise versa).

See...simple. No cutting out downloadables or motion games. No "exclusive" screening. Just a simple head on 360 vs PS3 list. Thats my standard. 

But I do apologize for overreacting. Your clearly not a rabid PS3 fan. Once again, im just so used to these lists being done by that kind. So for that im sorry, but I stand by the response I just typed.