By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ils411 on 08 March 2013
Edit Thread
ghettoglamour said:
ils411 said:
ghettoglamour said:
Lol, I'm proud PS3 owner, don't need and 360. That been said...who gives a fuck about average scores and shitty games?

The only thing that matters is how many good games a console has.
If console X has 50 games you want (good scores) and 600 games you don't want (bad scores) and console Y has 45 good games and 5 bad games....

Which console has the better average? Which console is more interesting to you?

you lost me there, if X has 50 games that I want, and Y has only 45 good games, despite it only having 5 bad games and X has 600 bad games, then its a no brainer. X all the way since it has 5 more good games that I want and the 600 nasty games are always good for a few laughs especially if those games are in the bargain bin.

Right, but console Y would have a much higher average score, which is what this thread is about. I just wanted to point out how pointless this thread is.


If you'll notice, I've expanded the OP to include the number of games that got a green rating for each console and the average meta score, number of games that has a score of 85 and highter and the average meta score.

You can keep on claiming that this thread has no point, but from the figures, I can point out that the PS3 has more quality games with respect to total reviewed games.

Funny how people start calling scores and stuff pointless and meaningless when the data shows that the PS3 has a better track recored compared to the Xbox360. But when spin and nitpicking is introduced, much how many threads are made to make the PS3's games look bad, they go like...yeah, ps3 sucks... lol!

lots of hypocrites running around. But the truth of the matter is, without the spins and nitpicking and biased selections, the PS3 comes out ahead with a better library of quality games base on meta score.