By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 25 February 2014
Edit Thread
sales2099 said:
BMaker11 said:
sales2099 said:

And to drive my point home, I actually counted the meta scores of 360 and PS3 for 70+ games. Yup....all of them, just now.

PS3

90+ = 51
80-89 = 322
70-79 = 418

360

90+ = 53
80-89 = 351
70-79 = 511

All games, DLC that was reviewed......everything. A real, unbiased, library comparison. On paper, 360 is clearly the superior games console, offering more quality games in all 3 review brackets.

Yet in reality, you will be hard pressed to find a group of gamers to back this up. Because it was all about the PS3 in the last few years. Because the all mighty retail AAA exclusive will always trump the quality, low budget, indie game. Always. Again, I learned this lesson from PS fans, not my own.

Gamers don't care for lists, they care for the big name games above all else. Which is why the below is more fitting:

Dead Rising 3/Forza 5 > Killzone Shadow Fall (made less desirable with BF4 and COD)
Ryse > Knack
Plants VS Zombies Garden Warfare timed exclusive
Titanfall > Infamous

It is simple. It is to the point. It removes the clutter of indie games. While amazing games in their own right, I learned from you guys that they are not system sellers, but bonuses to be enjoyed once all ready purchased the console for a big name game.

How many of those games are yearly sports titles from 2005 and before November 2006 (MLB, Boxing, NBA, NFL, NHL, Nascar, FIFA, etc.) or the likes of GH2 and CoD2 (games with multiplatform releases on 360 just because it came out first)?

You're trying to simplify things that shouldn't be simplified to try and prove a point that isn't there. I mean, is the 360 library really "superior" because of NBA Live 06? Come on buddy, you can do better than that

That tired excuse alone doesn't make up the entire gap. Not even close. A large reason for the gap is due to XBLA. Yet, it somehow doesn't matter comapred to a few PS3 high profile, retail, AAA, non-Move, exclusives. Go figure.

And now, we have people like the OP using lists to drive the same point home as I am that lists > reality. Its hypocritical.

Big name games >>> all else. If I am wrong, then 360 would be known today as the gamers true console in the 7th gen, as evidence by the list.

So two years of worth of yearly sports titles (50+ (sports games weren't just from EA Sports, you know)) and multiplatform titles with previous gen, but not on PS3 simply because the PS3 wasn't out yet (50+) is somehow a "tired excuse" when comparing two consoles with a games separation (on your particular list) of 124? 100+ games compared to 124 is "not even close" to making up the entire gap. Did you forget how to do math?

And you make it seem like PSN games just don't exist. Did you forget your history as well? Well in case you really did forget.....

The only thing you did get right was that, indeed, big games make the difference. When you think "360" you think Halo and Gears, not Splosion Man, and when you think "PS3" you think Uncharted and God of War, not Fat Princess. And if this is the metric we are going by, PS3 > 360

But you're using this to say XBone > PS4, but you're putting a qualifier on KZ ("made less desirable by CoD and BF4") and saying Ryse > Knack, when meta-wise, it's only marginally better and had less reviews, so technically speaking, the number is slighly less accurate. (that added more instead of keeping things simplified and apples to apples)

And let's just run with your quote about how indies/arcade games are "bonuses to be enjoyed once all ready purchased the console for a big name game". Well guess what? PS4 has Outlast, Don't Starve, WarFrame, Blacklight Retribution, Resogun, Contrast, etc. and XBone has literally nothing (right now), and everything else is pretty much equal between the two. So with that being said, how is the XBone better?