Nowadays Xbox360 turned out to be shitty product,only twistted minds still love it.

Fact is you are sticking with a shitty product,hehe.

I hate it when any fanboy generalizes that their console has the best games when they don't appeal to a lot of people.

NA =/= WW :)

I owned the dreamcast, xbox before buying the PS2 which I did not want because they broke a lot, but to play the big games, and the sheer amont of support the ps2 got, I  took a chance on the PS2. I  had a thread about how I felt the xbox was better as a console than my ps2 which still today wont play either GOW games, but I got the PS2  because that's where the games were. This gen, I don't really have to buy the Wii unless I want Nintendo games.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. Besides MH3 and Dragon Quest, the major games aren't Wii games, they are elsewhere and that's kind of weird for a console winner, but as a PS3 owner, I am loving it.

You see what you're not seeming to understand is that exactly what you're saying is opinion... "big games" are a matter of perception... just like leo-j talking about "AAA games" earlier.  As for this gen there have been a lot more "big games" on the PS3 and 360 because that's what they're hyped and marketed to be, same teams, same ideas, same games last gen, would never get the same kind of marketing budget or be hyped like they are, this gen it's just publishers protecting their investments.  Not really sure why people don't see this.

Anyway opinions are not facts, simple, what is a big game to you is not a big game to me, is not a big game to *throws random user out there* MakingMusic476, is not a big game to the average joe. 

Facts (according to VGChartz):

Wii - 70.78 millions
XBOX360 - 39.64 millions
PS3 - 34.39 millions

Wii wins in all markets. In the HD market XBOX360 wins USA (very important market by the way), PS3 wins Japan (dominated by NINTENDO and Japanese companies) and in Europe it's a stalemate (+-).

E3 is coming, NATAL is coming, MOVE is coming, XBOX360 Slim is coming. All the big franchises are already out for both consoles (only GT5 missing).

We are in the middle of 2010, this generation is reaching it's end (maybe 2012?).

The winner is XBOX360 because it came from behind, no install base, no fans, no franchises no nothing, they have made a hell of a job. The surprise is the Wii, nobody was expecting it (admit it!) and the looser is the PS3, it had all the fans, all the install base and now is fighting for second place.

As simple as that.

The Thing is we all know what a big game, just because we may not like them or buy them. We know Assasin's Creed, Super Mario , COD, hALO, MARIO Kart, Gears, Final Fantasy, GTA, Monster Hunter, Pokemon, we know they are big games. And I am saying the Wii is not getting them as the winners usually get these games. Yes, the Wii get support, but they are small to medium games that are usually niche titles anyway.

I really wouldn't say most of that myself, PS3 isn't a "loser" in the sense of a console, its done quite well for itself as far as userbase goes.  Is it losing in a console sales race between the other consoles yeah it is, was it likely a poor business choice on Sony's part, yeah it was.  Mostly because numbers are facts that you cannot sway with personal opinion as much as people try to.

Also the gen isn't ending anytime soon, 2012 seems a bit soon to me, maybe 2013, but I don't really see much of a leap going into "next gen".  I'm predicting that future gen lines will be a lot more blurry as far as technology goes especially power.  Basically you'll want it to be something that is safe to invest in, right now it's okay cause just like in the Atari days people are being convinced they need that new pong console that is a lot like the others... all because the owner really needs to make his money back.  Budgets are simply too high to have another HUGE leap, it would simply be too much for publishers, they're doing a so-so job with that this gen, many devs and publishers dying off quickly, another spike in dev costs could drive a steak through the heart of some companies. Ex. Namco Bandai, they've released a good number of decent titles, and for last gen standards would be decent sales that would have broke even, yet they're posting a huge loss, same situation with even BIGGER budgets... namco-bandai would be dead.

*shrug* I dunno mike, I'm just your average joe I couldn't tell you which of those games out of the ones you've listed is really "big". 

*shakes head* What you've just said and listed off just proves my point, Assassins Creed being a big one, since it was a new IP this gen, had no fanbase prior, and when the publisher invested so much money into the game they decided that marketing it as an awesome new super cool game (AKA one of your "BIG titles") when really it was like theres this so-so game that we put a lot of money into, we need to market it to people to protect the investment, then we green lit a trilogy because guess what?  That helps just break even and then make more money with reducing investments.  It's all really a business tactic that has been in use since forever.

Now if your definition of "big games" was done by popular opinion, which is tangible, cause sales are a pretty direct correlation to popular opinion and what they want, AKA demand.  But I'm guessing that would only work for some of those games you've listed, and in all likelyhood make some games you wouldn't want to be seen as "big games" into "big games" simply defeating your own argument.

So right now psrock you've got two ways to go with this man, "my definition of big games is this, cause this is what I believe popular opinion is, though I'm simply representing the "hardcore" definition of big games" (which is all opinion) or you can go by something tangible and backed up by numbers, which would contradict the statements you've made :-\