RROD, the issue that will get you jumped on.

[Frost]

Isn't a lot of what makes a game "good" rather subjective with reviewers these days, anyway?

I mean, let's take Halo 3, and take it objectively for a change. The only reason Halo 3 got enormous ratings was because it was Halo 3. If it was the same game, but renamed "Space Battle 2000" and given honest reviews, I can't see it faring nearly as well. It had three awesome chapters, sandwiched between six chapters of flat out generic mediocrity.

Gears of War earned its scores. Mass Effect earned its scores. Dead Rising earned its scores. Call of Duty 4 earned its scores. Halo 3 coasted in with a mediocre campaign, plot holes, and shamefully substandard graphics and got high rankings based solely on the fact that it was Halo 3.

The PS3 is still looking for truly killer titles, but saying it has "no good games" and then listing Halo 3 as a "great game" that no PS3 title can touch is just flat out ridiculous. The PS3 has already had multiple Halo 3 or better quality games. What is needs is its counterpart to Gears of War, and its counterpart to Mass Effect. If GTA 4 was a PS3 exclusive but sucked, it would still sell a gazillion titles and garner high scores just because it's the next GTA. Same with Halo 3.