PSP and PS3 games - are they really that bad?

[your mother]

Gballzack said:

your mother said:

Gballzack said:

 

Here, since you obviously missed it...

I didn't miss anything. You have a look at my replies based on your very own trolling comments, and tell me where I missed anything.

Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list.

1. Just proved that not all Metacritic sites are pro-Sony, unless you think official Nintendo magazines are pro-Sony...

Face it, the closest thing you're going to ever get to an objective source is the game sales.

2. Jusst proved that a game with lousy reviews (Spider-Man 3 for Wii) can sell much more than a game with excellent reviews (Ouendan for DS), so your point is debunked.

How about you list all of Metacritics sources and lets see how unbiased they are then? And praise from sony owned websites doesn't matter much either I'm afraid.

3. I didn't list all the sites, but the pro-Nintendo ones should suffice to prove my point. Notice I did not list one single Sony-owned website from the Metacritic review summaries.

Shame on you Davygee, shame on you, you should have known better than to try something like this.

4. If anything, it's you who has lost the plot completely.

Are you going to troll argue to this again? I'm running out of decent images to link to.

Example E: Sony Fanboy comeback: Late to the argument, the Sony Fanboy refuses to acknowledge that the debate has moved on not in his favor. To remedy this he attacks outdated comments in the thread as if to rekindle issues already passed and resolved. To follow up this malicious attack he refuses to acknowledge anything said by the oponent and simply keeps beating the same drum of outdated issues that have already met resolution in the discussion.

You don't get it, do you? I'm not a Sony fanboy, so you're wasting your time with that argument.

1. I never claimed all of Metacritics sites were Sony based except in the original post which was a hyperbole for making a point. If you'd bother to read on you'd see that I'd proven the majority of the sites were Sony and Graphic favored.

What? Your very own quote, with emphasis on the bold:

Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list.

2. Whether those games are good or bad are matters of opinion and taste. There is no fact that one was any better than the other outside of what a few people can agree upon. The best estimate that can be given on a games objective value is its sales, whether we agree with that or not, its the closest thing we have. Reviewers and their opinions are subjective and not quantifiable no matter how many numbers they use. Just because you want so badly to believe there is a measure of truth in what a game's value is doesn't mean there is one. And I can garantee you game sales are a far more accurate measure of a game's quality than any Game reviewer or their aggregate sum.

Again, that must mean Spider-Man 3 is a far better game than Ouendan. I'm not saying that there aren't people that actually enjoy Spider-Man 3 more than Ouendan, but your claiming game sales is an objective measure of a game's quality is just as absurd as using aggregate sums or averages of game review sites.

3. I never claimed there weren't pro-nintendo sites, just that the majority was Sony favored.

Again, I quote you (these are YOUR words, not mine; I'd suggest you change your posts to reflect this if you want to suddenly change your stance from "ALL" to "MAJORITY"):

Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list.

4. If you say so, your posts themselves are the greatest ammunition against your credibility and ability to adhere to the discussion at hand.

Pot. Kettle. Black.