Jay520 said:
hmmm... A compelling argument indeed, but Sales2099brings up a good point. What is your response???? @ Sales2099 I have a reccomendation that I think will make this comparison more valid and fun. Instead of scoring games by groups, you should it do it based on each title's score. What I mean by this. Add up the meta score of each game for a combined Super-Meta! The console with the highest super-meta at the end is the winner. For example, Lets say console A release three games with metas of 95, 85, & 85. And Console B releases three games with metas of 95, 90, and 75. Who performed better??? Console A had one A game, and two B games. Console B had two A games and a C game. Which is superior??? At this point it'll all be subjective. An objective way to look at it would be to compare the Super Metas! Console A would have a 265. And console B would have a 260. Console A would be the objective winner!!!!!!! This also gives more credit to a game that wouldn't have necessarily got it had it been in the same group as a lower scoring game. Example: An 89 rated game should be treated the same as an 80 rated game!!!! However, using your system they would be treated equally. Unfair! Unfair! Unfair!!!! The super Meta method is superior!!! :O |
No system is perfect. Yours is different but not simple enough to understand instantly. I know some may object to a 79 rated game being in the same category as a 70 game, but hey, its the boundries and it effects both sides.
I offer this:
70-79 - A
80-89 - AA
90+ - AAA
Essentially you "add up the A". 3 "A" games is worth the same as one "AAA" game. One AA and one A is worth one AAA game. It isnt a ludicrous notion to say one amazing game is worth 3 "good" games.
Just a thought. Add up the total "A". See who has more total in the end.
But if all else, what we have now, pure numbers of games in each scoring category, is sufficient to see what each console can offer.
And ive been reading the posts......yes im trying real hard to be good for E3 :P








